The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

The Environment British-Irish Council Sectoral Meeting

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of the Environment that he wishes to make a statement on the British-Irish Council Environment Sectoral Group meeting held in London on Monday 2October.

Mr Sam Foster: Following nomination by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, Mr Martin McGuinness and I represented the Northern Ireland Executive at a meeting of the British-Irish Council on the Environment on 2 October. The UK Government were represented by the Environment Minister, Mr Michael Meacher MP, who chaired the meeting. The Irish Government were represented by Mr Noel Dempsey TD, Minister for the Environment and Local Government. The meeting was also attended by representatives of the Scottish Executive,  the National Assembly for Wales, the Isle of Man Government  and the States of Jersey and Guernsey.
A full list of delegates is attached to the communiqué that was issued after the meeting and placed in the Assembly Library. This statement has been agreed by Mr McGuinness and is being made on his behalf.
At the first summit meeting of the British-Irish Council, on 17 December 1999, the environment was selected as an issue for early discussion. The UK Government were tasked with taking the lead in this area and under the chairmanship of Mr Meacher, the environment sectoral group was established to consider the environmental issues affecting the member Administrations and to report back.
The members agreed that the group would provide a valuable forum for the exchange of information and the discussion of matters of mutual interest. The group discussed a wide range of priority areas for future consideration. These included: the impacts on the environment of climate change, agriculture and aquaculture; waste management, waste recycling and radioactive and chemical wastes; water quality under the water framework directive; and environmental research. Many of these were put forward by the Northern Ireland Administration.
After discussion the group agreed that consideration over the next few months should concentrate on radioactive waste from the Sellafield site, in respect of which the Irish Government and the Isle of Man would lead the preparation of a paper for the next meeting; the impacts of climate change, in respect of which the United Kingdom Government would take the lead; and waste management, in respect of which the Scottish Executive would prepare a paper on initiatives being pursued in Scotland. The work will be progressed by working groups of officials under the leadership of each Administration, who will report back to the environment sectoral group.
I expressed a particular interest in water quality management in the context of the Water Framework Directive, and it is my expectation that consideration will be given to this at subsequent meetings.
The group also considered a paper by the United Kingdom Government which reviewed the conclusions of the OSPAR regional quality status report on the Celtic seas. The group reviewed the issues of concern identified in the report and the ways in which they are being dealt with in various forums. It was agreed that a high level of liaison and co-operation should continue between the Administrations concerned to facilitate the implementation of all appropriate measures and the identification of any new initiatives that may be required. It was agreed that periodic reports on progress should be provided to the group.
Finally, the group considered and agreed the text of the communiqué which was issued after the meeting. A copy of the communiqué has been placed in the Assembly Library. The next meeting of the environment sectoral group will be hosted by the Scottish Executive.

Mr Eddie McGrady: I thank the Minister for his report on the British-Irish Council meeting. It is no surprise that the first highlighted item was radioactive discharge into the Irish Sea from Sellafield, although the heading refers to waste from Sellafield. Can the Minister confirm that in dealing with radioactive waste from the Sellafield site he will be dealing not only with the high and medium grade waste stored on land but also with the discharges of low level radioactive waste into the Irish Sea? Can he indicate whether or not the British Government — the major shareholders of the main offender, British Nuclear Fuels Ltd (BNFL) — have declared an interest in this matter? The British Government signed the OSPAR agreement. In July 1998 they indicated that they would reduce radioactive waste into the Irish Sea to nil by 2020. In view of the fact that they have further licence to reprocess particularly at the MOX plant at Sellafield, how do they propose to achieve zero outflow by 2020 if they are increasing the discharges?

Mr Sam Foster: The operation of the Sellafield plant and its impact on the Irish Sea is of considerable interest to some sections of the Northern Ireland public, and Mr McGrady shows great interest in it. So far as I am aware, the levels of radioactivity measured by the Environment and Heritage Service are of negligible radiological significance. The Environment and Heritage Service arranges for samples of seaweed, sediment, fish and shellfish to be collected quarterly for analysis. We also monitor the air over coastal intertidal sediments. This reveals minimum amounts of radioactivity which are consistent with normal background levels. The Northern Ireland programme has been in place since the early 1970s and is reviewed annually to ensure that any changes in discharge are assessed — for example, the Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (THORP) Start-Up Scheme in 1994. I can assure Members that these issues have come to our attention, and that the level of radioactivity measured in the environment is not of any great significance.

Rev William McCrea: I thank the Minister for his statement and for raising many issues which will be of interest to my Committee. I note that working groups are to be set up to deal with specific issues. Will the groups include staff from Northern Ireland? If not, why not?
Radioactive waste from Sellafield is an important issue. Is the Minister’s Department monitoring the effects of Sellafield discharge around the Northern Ireland coastline? If so, what are the findings? Northern Ireland produces less than 3·5% of the United Kingdom’s total greenhouse gas emissions, yet we are still affected by the impact of climate change and cannot afford to be complacent. Are there specific plans to further reduce these emissions in Northern Ireland?
Waste management is topical and we had a helpful exchange on the issue last week. I note that a paper on waste management initiatives in Scotland is to be presented to the sectoral group, and local councils are currently drafting plans for departmental perusal. Does the Minister think that Scotland can show Northern Ireland the way forward, and can he say which particular initiatives will be of local interest?
Finally, on a personal note, I note that Martin McGuinness, SinnFéin/IRA Member, was at the meeting. As the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party has decided that SinnFéin/IRA is to be banned from North/South bodies, can the Minister confirm that this ban will be extended to the British-Irish Council meetings?

Mr Sam Foster: The Member’s last question is one for my leader to answer.
One question concerned the officials who will be operating —

Mr Speaker: For the sake of clarity, let me point out that it is the First Minister who would deal with the Member’s question. I know that the Minister’s leader and the First Minister are one and the same person, but technically it is a matter for the First Minister.

Mr Sam Foster: Yes, it is for the First Minister to decide, and I cannot answer for him.
Officials from the Environment and Heritage Service will play a full part in the working groups.
The Environment and Heritage Service has 40 estuarine and coastal monitoring points around Northern Ireland. These include seven stations that are part of the UK’s national marine monitoring programme, which sets the protocols for best practice in marine monitoring. These arrangements apply at all our sampling sites. My Department and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development are working together on the nutrient enrichment of our sea loughs.
The Department of the Environment’s draft budget includes £3·5 million to help local district councils to implement the waste management strategy. Three waste management planning groups have been formed representing all 26 district councils and their plans are due by June 2001. A consultation paper on partnerships between councils and with the private and voluntary sectors to implement the strategy was issued in August. Further planned work includes the establishment of a new advisory board to help my Department in implementation of the waste management strategy, the issue of planning policy statement on planning and waste management and the introduction of further waste management regulations.
While local authorities in Northern Ireland are working out their waste management plans, in Scotland recycling markets and other initiatives are well progressed, and we may be able to follow the lead of the Scots, take their advice and adopt their guidelines.

Mr Mitchel McLaughlin: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement. I welcome the study into radioactive waste from Sellafield, and I hope the Minister took the opportunity to raise the issue of cancer clusters on the east coast, which affect not only the Irish Government but also the Assembly. These are issues in which we take a close interest.
However, my response to the Minister’s statement relates to two closely interconnected issues in particular — the impacts of climate change and waste management. We can no longer deny the consequences of these: we have all seen the daily weather bulletins and the images of flooding in recent days. I would be interested to know how much more advanced the Scottish Executive’s waste management programme is. Did they, for example, bring any information to that meeting that indicated that they were putting structures and legislation in place to ensure that we control the level of waste being produced as well as procedures for reuse and recycling?

Mr Sam Foster: Waste management is very much advanced in Scotland, and, as I said in my earlier answer, we are willing to take advice from Scotland and its officials, with whom our officials are in touch. We will willingly take any guidance or help we can get. They do seem to be a little bit more advanced than we are in this part of the world. We are willing to follow that through and take from it what is beneficial.
The Member referred to the treacherous climate change. The Department of the Environment fully supports the climate change programme currently being drawn up by the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions and the devolved Administrations. The programme will set out a range of measures to meet the UK’s Kyoto obligations for a 12·5% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2008-12. A major study will be commissioned to identify the key areas in which climate change is most likely to have an impact on Northern Ireland. The results of this preliminary study will form the basis for future work on climate change here. The most likely areas requiring detailed attention are water resources, flood protection, buildings, habitats and land use planning. The Member referred to waste management. This is a big issue, and it is going to be a difficult one. It will be a slow, educational process. We are willing to work on it in co-ordination with the Scottish people.

Ms Carmel Hanna: At the environment conference on 25 October with the Prime Minister, the CBI and the Green Alliance, it was announced that moneys would be made available — to the tune of about £100 million — through the Carbon Trust and the New Opportunity Trust, to encourage cleaner technologies such as wind, solar power and renewable energy, and to help further engage consumers with initiatives. Did the Minister get an opportunity to discuss a share of this money for Northern Ireland, which would work out at about £2·5 million?

Mr Sam Foster: No in-depth discussion took place at that particular meeting because we were discussing many other matters. However, those are certainly issues that we will follow through and address, because if money is available, we want to ensure that we receive it too.

Mr David Ford: I welcome the Minister’s statement, although it seems that the major question that must be asked of most of the statement is "When?" A number of priorities were highlighted, and there is great concern in the Chamber and outside about matters such as Sellafield. Perhaps it would have been beneficial if the Minister had given us some idea of the timing of any changes within Sellafield and of his Administration’s approach to the running down of the plant.
Climate change and waste management are priorities. My concern is about climate change. Can the Minister explain how matters like public transport, which are not in his Department’s remit, will be dealt with by the British-Irish Council’s Environment sector? Who will cover those issues on our behalf? May I have an assurance that the work being done by the three groups in Northern Ireland on waste management will not be delayed now that the Executive is in consultation with the Scots in the British-Irish Council? When and how quickly can we expect action?

Mr Sam Foster: There will be no delay whatsoever with any of the plans that are afoot. It is difficult to say when the waste management strategy will be finalised, but I assure Members that the Department will pursue all the issues with haste, to the benefit of this part of the world.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I thank the Minister for his statement. In a sense, the environment is an eminently suitable subject for the British-Irish Council. Environmental issues can spill over — technically and literally — from one country or jurisdiction to another. A co-operative approach is therefore welcome.
The Minister highlighted the important issue of climate change. Our country — the United Kingdom — has made considerable progress in implementing so-called carbon taxing, including the climate change levy on energy prices and the escalator on transport fuel. Both of those moves have, of course, caused problems, as we have previously noted. The Republic of Ireland’s Government have been much slower than the United Kingdom’s to adopt the practice and the principle of taxing economic activity according to the amount of climate-changing carbon that is produced. What progress is being made through the British/Irish Council to persuade the Dublin Government, like the United Kingdom Government, to take more seriously their international obligations on climate change?

Mr Sam Foster: Climate change is a big issue. Each jurisdiction has a responsibility to fulfil, and that will be vigorously pursued. If the Republic of Ireland is falling behind, that issue will be pursued with its Government. I am concerned about climate change. There is clear scientific evidence that sufficient damage has already been done to the earth’s climate to cause a range of potential changes, regardless of the influence of action under Kyoto.
Key policies include improving businesses’ use of energy, using the climate change levy; stimulating new, more efficient forms of power generation such as renewables, combined heat and power plants; cutting transport emissions through fuel efficiency and taxation; promoting better energy efficiency in the domestic sector; reducing emissions from agriculture through better management, cuts in fertiliser usage and energy efficiency; and setting a good example of green housekeeping in the public sector. The Department of the Environment, in conjunction with the Scotland and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research (SNIFFER), is about to commission a major scoping study into the impacts of climate change in Northern Ireland. The results of that preliminary study will form the basis for future work on climate change.

Mr Edwin Poots: Why did the Minister omit the names of the representatives of the Scottish Executive, the National Assembly for Wales, the Isle of Man Government and the states of Jersey and Guernsey? That is not very inclusive. I would be as interested to know about their representatives as about those of the Irish Government.
Regarding the OSPAR regional quality status report on the Celtic seas, did the Minister raise the issue of munitions dumping in the Beaufort’s Dyke and the problems with munitions washing up on the County Antrim coastline?

Mr Sam Foster: The names of those who attended are in the communiqué.

Mr Edwin Poots: What about the statement?

Mr Sam Foster: The statement is in the Library. The statement that I gave earlier referred to those who were there.
I did not pick up Mr Poots’s question fully. I said that the Scottish Executive were there, as were the National Assembly for Wales, the Isle of Man Government and representatives of Jersey and Guernsey.

Mr Speaker: Would Mr Poots like to put the question again?

Mr Edwin Poots: Who represented the Scottish Executive and the other named bodies?

Mr Sam Foster: Their names were unfamiliar to me. I had never met them before. I can provide the Member with their names by written reply.
What was the Member’s other question?

Mr Edwin Poots: Was the issue of munitions dumping at Beaufort’s Dyke raised in relation to the OSPAR Commission’s regional quality status report on the Celtic Seas?

Mr Sam Foster: Beaufort’s Dyke was referred to and will be dealt with in due course. I now have the names of the delegates. Does the Member want to know who was on the United Kingdom delegation?

Mr Edwin Poots: All of them.

Mr Sam Foster: The members of the United Kingdom delegation were Ms Dinah Nicholls, Mr Andrew Burchell, Mr Henry Derwent and Mr Alan Simcock. Those on the Irish delegation were Mr Noel Dempsey TD, Ms Geraldine Tallon and Mr John Kelleher. The Northern Ireland delegation comprised Mr Sam Foster MLA, Mr Martin McGuinness MP MLA, Mr Felix Dillon and Mr Jim Lamont. Those representing Scotland were Ms Sarah Boyack MSP, Ms Nicola Munro and Mr Sandy Cameron. The members of the delegation from Wales were Mr Bob Macey and Dr Havard Prosser. The Isle of Man representatives were The Hon Walter Gilbey MHK, Mr Anthony Hamilton, Mr Martin Hall and Dr Paul McKenna. The Jersey delegation comprised Senator Nigel Queree, Dr Michael Romeril and Mr Gerard le Claire. The Guernsey representatives were Deputy Roger Berry and Mr Stephen Smith. The British-Irish Council secretariat was represented by Mr Mike Sweet and Mr Kieran Madden. It is not easy to remember all those names.
The OSPAR Commission report referred to Beaufort’s Dyke. Beaufort’s Dyke has not been forgotten. It is still highlighted, and will continue to be so, because I know that there are concerns about the Antrim coast.

Mr Peter Robinson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The specific question was whether the issue was raised at the meeting.

Mr Speaker: The Minister may have missed that part of the question.

Mr Sam Foster: The issue of Beaufort’s Dyke was raised at the meeting and remains an issue of concern.

Mr Speaker: There being no further questions, we shall move on.

Food Standards Agency

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety that she wishes to make a statement on the general objectives and practices of the Food Standards Agency.
(Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair)

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas Cheann Comhairle. Tá áthas orm Ráiteas ar Chuspóirí Ginearálta agus Chleachtais na Gníomhaireachta um Chaighdeáin Bia a chur faoi bhráid an Tionóil inniu.
Bunaíodh an Ghníomhaireacht um Chaighdeáin Bia faoin Food Standards Act 1999 leis an tsláinte phoiblí a chosaint ar phriacail a d’fhéadfadh a bheith ann maidir le bia a thomhailtear agus le leas tomhaltóirí a chosaint i dtaca le bia.
Tá cur síos ginearálta sa doiciméad ar an dóigh a mbeidh an ghníomhaireacht ag feidhmiú. Leagtar amach na príomhchuspóirí agus na cleachtais ghinearálta atá beartaithe ag an ghníomhaireacht a chur i bhfeidhm nuair a bheas sí i mbun a cuid feidhmeanna.
Ceanglaítear ar an ghníomhaireacht faoi alt 22(4) den Acht dréachtráiteas a chur faoi bhráid Airí lena gcead a fháil. Más mian le hAirí leasuithe ar bith a dhéanamh ar an ráiteas seo, is gá dóibh, faoi alt 22(5), dul i gcomhairle leis an ghníomhaireacht. Is gá faoi alt 22(6) an ráiteas ceadaithe a chur faoi bhráid na Parlaiminte i Westminster, Tionól Náisiúnta na Breataine Bige, Pharlaimint na hAlban agus an Tionóil anseo.
I ndiaidh comhairliú forleitheadach poiblí a dhéanamh, tá an Ráiteas ar Chuspóirí Ginearálta agus Chleachtais ceadaithe ag an Státrúnaí Sláinte, ag an Aire Sláinte in Albain, ag an Rúnaí Sláinte sa Bhreatain Bheag agus agam féin. Molaim don Tionól é.
I am pleased to present to the Assembly the Food Standards Agency’s (FSA) Statement of General Objectives and Practices. The FSA was set up by the Food Standards Act 1999 to protect public health from the risks that may arise in connection with food consumption and to protect consumers’ interests in relation to food.
The document describes in general terms how the agency will operate and sets out the main objectives and general practices that the agency intends to adopt. Section 22(4) of the Food Standards Act 1999 requires the agency to submit the draft statement to Ministers for their approval. Should Ministers wish to make any modification to the statement, section 22(5) requires them to consult the agency before doing so. Section 22(6) requires that the approved statement be laid before the Parliament at Westminster, the National Assembly for Wales, the Scottish Parliament and this Assembly. After wide-ranging public consultation, the Statement of General Objectives and Practices has been approved by the Secretary of State for Health, by myself, by the Minister for Health in Scotland and the Health Secretary in Wales. I commend it to the Assembly.

Mr P J Bradley: The recently published Phillips report into the BSE crisis included some serious findings. What steps has the Food Standards Agency taken to adopt the recommendations made in the report?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: As the Member said, the Phillips report included some very serious statements and set out actions to be taken. Sir John Krebs, the chairman of the Food Standards Agency, welcomed the publication of the report on the Phillips inquiry into BSE on Thursday 26 October 2000, and pledged that vital information on food safety risks would never again be withheld from the public. He also said that many of the key changes identified by the inquiry as being necessary to protect consumers had already been adopted by the agency.
The FSA has made a clean start on openness and public accountability; its research and advice are open to scrutiny, and where there is uncertainty or risk the agency says so. The FSA has been reviewing BSE controls since April 2000 and has held a series of public meetings. It will submit a report to Health and Agriculture Ministers in Westminster, the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and this Assembly, taking account of the report of the BSE inquiry.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: I welcome the Minister’s statement on the FSA. It must be a priority to maintain high standards, restore confidence to the consumer — not only in Northern Ireland but across the world — and regain local producers’ lost export business. Openness and transparency are of great importance. I hope that lessons have been learnt from the experience of previous Administrations. The Minister briefly referred to those lessons in relation to BSE, a devastating disease. Will the agency be able to bring its full authority to bear in examining all the food that is imported into Northern Ireland? Will that come under the FSA’s umbrella?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I agree with everything that Mr McCarthy has said about openness and transparency. The statement shows clearly that the agency believes such things to be paramount. The FSA will work with local enforcement agencies to improve quality and has made a framework agreement with them. The agency will also work with the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, setting out overall strategic objectives and monitoring their enforcement. Through setting these objectives, monitoring and working with other agencies, the FSA will be able to ensure that food safety is paramount from the farm gate to the plate.

Mr Paul Berry: I welcome this UK body, the Food Standards Agency — and I emphasise "UK body".
First, as regards part 5, "Our Working Practices", will the Department detail the policy that will be followed to ensure that the agency’s working practices are transparent? Secondly, when there is conflicting scientific advice, what policy will be followed? Thirdly, what will be the relationship between this body and the all-Ireland body launched in Enniskillen on Friday?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: On the issue of transparency and openness, the Food Standards Act 1999 gives the agency the power to publish its advice to Ministers, and this principle is embodied in its proposed code of practice on openness. The agency will normally publish the advice and information it receives and provides to others. It is committed to issuing clear and timely advice, in plain language, on all issues relating to food safety and other consumer interests regarding food. In addition, a large amount of information on the Food Standards Agency, its responsibilities and activities will be included on its website.
I will briefly explain how the agency will act on occasions when there is scientific uncertainty. The proposed statement on the agency’s approach to risk — on which it is currently consulting — describes, in general terms, how it intends to deal with risks from the time when the agency first becomes aware of them through to the decision making and enforcement stages. The agency will take a precautionary approach — it will not always wait until it has proof of a potential hazard before acting or issuing advice.
On the issue of working with other bodies to promote food safety, it is clear that the Food Safety Promotion Board will have the lead role. The Food Standards Agency will have a role in working on draft legislation and will provide, in an EU context, advice to the Assembly and Ministers. The two bodies do not carry out the same functions but a relationship between the local executive of the Food Standards Agency and the Food Safety Promotion Board will be needed. To facilitate effective co-operation, a concordat will be put in place following agreement by the two bodies, which will set out the arrangements for co-operation and liaison.

Mr James Leslie: I welcome the Minister’s statement on food standards. The theme running through this document starts with basing decisions on best scientific advice; later it refers to sound scientific advice and finally it recognises there is uncertainty in the science. How does the Minister and this agency propose to reconcile the three situations? It is realistic to say that there is uncertainty, so how do they propose to identify the best advice?
The agency’s Statement of General Objectives and Practices contains the following objective:
"To ensure that the interests of UK consumers in relation to food are effectively promoted within the European Union and in other international forums."
That is a fairly ineffective statement of intent. The problem we have with food standards in the United Kingdom is that, whilst the food produced within the United Kingdom is subject to rigorous standards, the food that is imported and sold on the same supermarket shelves is not subject to anything like the same standards. Do the Minister and her colleagues propose to address this matter, with a view to providing some means of protection to consumers in the United Kingdom from imported food subject to much less rigorous standards?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I addressed the issue of how the agency will deal with the uncertainties in my previous response. It will work on the basis of the best scientific advice available, and, as the Food Safety Agency, it will have access to scientific advice from England, Scotland, Wales and here.
The local board of the agency will have access to that advice. Given the precautionary principle, that will be the key basis for informing decisions and informing the agency, so where there is uncertainty, that is how it will be approached. Indeed, it is of paramount importance that the consumers have clear advice and clear, open information about the state of play.
As regards setting policy, it will also try to ensure that there is open consultation with a wide range of people. When the agency is making decisions, such as setting overall parameters in the importing of products, it will consult with all of those who could be or are affected — it is currently preparing guidance on that — and, in line with the agency’s commitment to improve continually the way that consultation is conducted, it will invite stakeholders to comment on the guidance that it has.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: I would also like to welcome the Minister’s statement, and particularly the emphasis she put on the openness and transparency of the working practices of the Food Standards Agency. Did she take note of the work that agency has done in the UK in that the entire sheep flock is to be screened in case there is BSE in that flock masquerading as scrapie? In the light of the openness and transparency that the Minister emphasised so much, can she advise us of the position in Northern Ireland and what plans the Food Standards Agency here has for this?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: The more general questions in respect of the handling of BSE will be dealt with in a statement tomorrow. I can say that the controls for sheep were introduced on a precautionary basis as a risk-reduction measure, since BSE has never been found in the flock. These controls are regarded as adequate, although there is a great deal of uncertainty about BSE and sheep, and the agency considers that it is important to clear this up, so it is pressing for further and faster research.

Mr Jim Shannon: I too welcome the consistent approach to the Food Standards Agency in the United Kingdom.
In relation to the funding of the agency, the £90 levy has been dropped, but a charge will be made by way of a licence fee. People are worried that these licence fees could be as much as £600 per shop or establishment. Some were already saying that the £90 was too much. Would it not have been better to ensure that the extra work for local environmental health groups was funded centrally through the Government?
I would also like to have a commitment that the promotion of public health will be given equal status to the protection of public health, and I want to know exactly how that will work. Paragraph11 of the statement mentions the fact that the agency’s information should be placed in the public domain. Can we have a commitment on that or, if necessary, a clear reason that it should not be so? I am concerned that we may not have the transparency that Mr McCarthy and Mr Leslie talked about.
As for the pooling of resources, the statement refers to provision for technical and scientific specialist support although, in many cases, local government is already doing that. I want to ensure that there are sufficient resources and that the system we have will work effectively.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: The Member has raised several important points. Licensing is subject to the existence of enhanced hygiene conditions; documented hazard analysis and critical control points; food safety management controls; and improved hygiene training for staff. A charge of £100 will be payable by businesses to the issuing authority on receipt on the licence.
In relation to the promotion of food safety, it is clear from the agency’s statement that it has set itself the target of measurably improving public confidence and public information. Openness will be pursued as one of its key objectives. The agency will conduct and publish annual consumer attitude surveys on food issues and on the Food Standards Agency itself. It will publish annual reports concerning its scientific and surveillance work, in a manner which consumers can understand. It will enhance its website so that that is completely interactive by 2002, thereby allowing the public to tell the agency what they would like it to do.
Facilities to provide consumer advice will be developed, and new approaches that harness recent developments in e-technology will be piloted. The agency will hold public board meetings and open discussions in order to listen to, and act upon, public concerns. It will also encourage local authorities to publish local information on hygiene standards in food premises. Details of the performance of enforcement activities will be made public. Availability of research results will be increased and a system for post hoc audits of major food incidents, involving the relevant stakeholders, will be established. It is important to note that the agency can provide and publish advice to Ministers without having to seek ministerial approval.
With regard to the withholding of information, the proposed code of practice on openness makes the disclosure and publication of advice and information the norm. In accordance with this principle, information will only be withheld when strictly necessary. The code of practice on openness lists the various legal constraints on publication. Openness will be the key factor in the agency’s operation.

Mr Derek Hussey: I welcome the Food Standards Agency’s statement of general objectives and practices. In the section dealing with accountability, the board accepts collective responsibility for the co-ordination of the agency’s activities across the United Kingdom, and its accountability to the various Administrations. With regard to the regulatory work of the board, it is important that there is proper communication within those Administrations. Can the Minister tell us what internal lines of communication she has put in place to ensure the efficient and effective cross-departmental referencing that will be necessary in the area of regulation?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: The agency will liaise; it will set up concordats, liaison and monitoring groups. Also, in the area of enforcement, the agency, in trying to improve standards, is seeking to strengthen and develop links with those in local authorities responsible for enforcing food laws.
As part of this joint Government and local authority initiative, a group was set up in May 1999, which included representation from the Assembly. The culmination of the group’s work, and that of the two sub-groups established to examine the details, was the development of proposals for the Food Standards Agency framework agreement. Those draft proposals were issued in April for a three-month consultation period, which concluded in July. The majority of comments received largely supported the underlying principles of the framework agreement. Therefore the agency has set in place, and is continuing to set in place, specific written policies and practices to ensure proper co-ordination of all aspects of its work with each of the agencies involved.

Mr Edwin Poots: Will the Food Safety Promotion Board — the all-Ireland executive body — adopt the best working practice, as set out in the Food Standards Agency’s statement? If so, will the board raise the issue of the dumping of BSE carcasses close to rivers in the Irish Republic, where there is official support for such dumping? We know that JCBs have been used in BSE dumping for quite a while in the Irish Republic.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: As I said, the Foods Standards Agency is in the process of working out its relationship with the Food Safety Promotion Board and the two bodies are to agree a written concordat. In advance of that, it is not possible to say exactly what proposals the Food Standards Agency might bring forward that the Food Safety Promotion Board might or might not adopt. I stress again that, to some extent, the two bodies carry out different types of work, although they work in the same area and we will need to have overlapping arrangements. Clearly — [Interruption]

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. Would Mr Poots like to put the question again?

Mr Edwin Poots: There has been dumping of BSE-infected carcasses close to rivers in the Irish Republic, and that has been supported by the Government. Will the standards that apply in Northern Ireland be applied to animals in the Irish Republic, and will the Minister take steps to stop the importation of animals that do not meet the standards that are required of farmers in Northern Ireland?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: The Member should check Hansard to see whether or not he asked the specific question that I was specifically answering when he interrupted me.
Neither the Food Standards Agency nor I can impose a specific requirement relating to the way in which others carry out their work. However, all concerns raised about food standards and safety will be discussed.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Can the Minister reveal to the House the cost of her visit to Enniskillen for a meeting at which, I understand, food safety was on the agenda? One newspaper said that the Minister’s Nationalist talk-in in Enniskillen cost the equivalent of two hip replacement operations. Is that the best use of resources by the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and her Department? Which officials accompanied the Minister to her Nationalist talk-in in Enniskillen? What was the total cost of the junket?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I am not sure that the question relates specifically to the Food Standards Agency statement. However, as regards the food safety aspects — and all the other aspects — of Friday’s bilateral ministerial meeting, my view is that it was, indeed, a very worthwhile use of resources, which will lead to considerable tangible benefits in food safety and health provision throughout the island of Ireland.
I shall write to the Member about the officials who accompanied me and the costs of the day.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Sir John Gorman] in the Chair)

Family Law Bill: Second Stage

Mr Mark Durkan: That the Second Stage of the Family Law Bill [NIABill 4/00] be agreed.
I present this short Bill because of my responsibility for law reform, with particular reference to family law, in Northern Ireland. The Bill contains only a few policy aims, but they are very significant.
The Bill seeks to facilitate the acquisition of parental responsibility by unmarried fathers for their children. As an ancillary measure it also seeks to make the acquisition of parental responsibility by step-parents for the children of their spouses more transparent. At present the usual method is through the formal adoption of a child, but this should not always be necessary.
The Bill also creates a statutory presumption of paternity in two sets of circumstances — where a man is married to a woman at any time between the conception and birth of a child, and where he has been registered as the child’s father in the Register of Births, Deaths and Marriages.
The Bill also seeks to update the law on the range of tests that a court may authorise to be used to prove or disprove the parentage of a child. Parentage in this context is whether someone is or is not the mother or father of a child.
The Bill contains only three substantive clauses. I will deal with each of them and illustrate how they will interact with existing family law principles. Members have already seen the Bill and the accompanying explanatory and financial memorandum.
I will make some preliminary remarks about the policy behind the reforms. In Northern Ireland, marriage remains the norm for couples wishing to share their lives with their children, and in that situation husbands and wives share parental responsibility for their children. However, more couples are choosing not to marry — at least not straight away — but they desire to establish a family relationship with children. In 1998, for example, 6,743 live births occurred outside marriage. This represented 28·5% of all live births. In such cases only the mother will have parental responsibility for the child. The unmarried father will have no formal legally recognised relationship with the child, although he can establish such a relationship by marrying the child’s mother or by taking other steps to acquire parental responsibility.
Parental responsibility is defined in the Children Order (Northern Ireland) 1995 as
"all the rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority which by law a parent of a child has in relation to the child and his property".
There is no exhaustive list of what a parent may or may not do for a child, but parental responsibility includes decision-making powers with regard to education, health care, religion and other everyday matters, and the law relies on the courts to determine the extent of parental responsibility.
The proposals in the Bill do not seek to pass judgement on the different family relationships which adults choose for themselves and their children. They seek to ensure that, where appropriate, the child’s interests are secured by the legal recognition of the relationship with the child’s father and others such as step-parents who share in the day-to-day care of the child.
A step-parent, whether a man or a woman, has no biological tie to the child of his or her spouse. However, the step-parent has demonstrated a commitment to a family relationship by marrying one of the parents of the child. The Bill provides that a step-parent would be able to acquire parental responsibility for the child of a spouse only under a court order.
The second policy aim of the Bill is to place on a statutory footing the existing common-law presumption that a man who is married to a woman between the conception and birth of the child will be presumed to be the father of the child. The additional policy aspect is to create a new legal presumption that a man who is registered as the father of the child in the Register of Births, Deaths and Marriages will be presumed, in law, to be the father of the child. This will, I believe, simply be a clarification of what is normally understood by the public, although this presumption is not a legal one under the existing law.
The Bill will also update the law on the range of tests that a court may direct to be used if a child’s parentage is in dispute. Since the passing of the Family Law Reform Order 1977, there have been significant advances in the technology available to prove or disprove biological parentage. Courts in NorthernIreland should now be able to rely on new technology in deciding cases of disputed parentage. The policy which this Bill seeks to implement has been under consideration in Scotland, England and Wales, and it is likely that similar proposals will be brought forward in due course. Traditionally family law has been very similar across the jurisdictions, with NorthernIreland law following the changes made elsewhere. In this instance I am pleased to say that the Assembly has an opportunity to take the lead. With the large population movement across these islands, there is a strong argument for maintaining a degree of parity in sensitive issues such as family law so that legal relationships between children and their parents are recognised, hence the responsibility for taking decisions for children. That is an important, practical point with regard to health care and education.
I will now address each of the substantive clauses of the Bill. Under the Children (NorthernIreland) Order1995 unmarried fathers only acquire parental responsibility for their children if they take steps to demonstrate their commitment to the mother and child. The principal mechanisms are by entering into a parental responsibility agreement with the mother, which is registered in the High Court, or by obtaining an order from the court. Since the Children Order came into force those two mechanisms have not been used as often as had been hoped. As a result the vast majority of unmarried fathers have no formal legal relationship with their children.
In 1999 fewer than 200parental responsibility orders were made in favour of unmarried fathers. A relatively small number of parental responsibility agreements have been registered with the courts, yet almost 7,000 children are born each year outside marriage.
Clause 1 provides that an unmarried father will have parental responsibility for his children if he and the mother jointly register the child’s birth. Members will note that the Bill provides that in Northern Ireland the unmarried father’s parental responsibility will be recognised if the birth of the child has been jointly registered in Scotland or England and Wales. A child’s birth can only be jointly registered by the mother and the unmarried father if they both agree to the procedure. This new provision will only apply to births registered after the Family Law Bill is introduced. Unmarried fathers of children already born, and jointly registered, will be advised of the availability of existing procedures.
Clause 1 also provides that a step-parent should be able to apply for a court order conferring responsibility for a child of his or her spouse. The court will always have the child’s welfare and best interests as the paramount consideration in deciding whether to make such an order. Where appropriate, the court takes the child’s views into account. The Bill provides that the acquisition of parental responsibility by a step-parent will not enable that step-parent to make decisions on the child’s adoption. This will prevent the new procedure from being used to circumvent the existing legislation regulating adoption. Where an unmarried father acquires parental responsibility by jointly registering the child’s birth, or where a step-parent acquires it by obtaining a court order, the court may terminate the parental responsibility if an application is made to the court. The fact that the court may do so provides a necessary protection for the child, and his or her mother, and is additional to the existing legislation in force to deal with violence in family relationships.
The new provisions in clause 2 create a statutory presumption of paternity which are not wholly innovative. The first part of the clause merely seeks to codify an existing presumption of common law, which is that a man married to a woman at any time between the conception and birth of a child is presumed to be that child’s father. This, of course, is the truth in the vast majority of cases.
Secondly, the clause provides that where a man is registered as the father of a child, he will be presumed, in law, to be the father of that child. Again, this is common sense, although it is not presumed under existing common law. Considering the content of this Bill, it seems sensible to include these provisions as a useful clarification of what is recognised as the reality in almost all cases. In both instances, of course, the presumption of paternity may be rebutted on the balance of probabilities.
Clause 3 is of a technical nature, because it amends existing provisions contained in the Family Law Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1977. Under the existing legislation, if the paternity of a child is in dispute, a court may only direct that blood samples be taken from the child, or putative father, in order to determine parentage. The amendments in clause 3 will enable a court to direct that bodily samples, such as saliva or hair, may be taken for the purposes of scientific tests to determine parentage. This is undoubtedly a far less invasive and distressful procedure, particularly for children, than the existing procedures, and I consider it to be a major improvement on the human rights aspect of the current law.
Members will wish to know that the amendments in clause 3 were drafted alongside parallel amendments contained in clause 65 of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill, which the Assembly has already considered and agreed.
Following from what I have said, I hope Members will appreciate that, while this is a small law reform measure, it has some far-reaching effects. The policy conclusions which the Bill seeks to implement have been decided after the most rigorous consultation processes and close analysis of developments in family law, not only in Northern Ireland but in other jurisdictions, such as Scotland, England, Wales, the Republic of Ireland and further afield. I am convinced that these proposals represent a small, but significant, improvement to the existing law. Some may say that they go too far and others that they do not go far enough. When legislation seeks to regulate family relationships we are right to adopt a progressive yet cautious approach.
I will try to answer as many of the Members’ points and questions during my winding-up speech as possible. Of course, if I am not able to respond today, I will write to Members.

Mr James Leslie: I welcome the Bill that the Minister has introduced today. It will make a number of common- sense amendments to current law. I sometimes think we do too much "guinea-pigging", but I do not think there is any reason for caution in respect of this Bill. I welcome the fact that Northern Ireland is leading the way within the United Kingdom in these matters.
The existing law on parental responsibility is most likely to be largely misunderstood by a considerable number of unmarried fathers who are registered as a parent. There has been an assumption that that law puts them in a legal relationship with the child, but it does not. The change that the Bill will introduce to ensure that registering does constitute a legal relationship is very welcome, and in the vast majority of cases that will be appropriate. I know there may be certain circumstances in which it may not be deemed to be so, but they will be in the minority.
Can the Minister confirm that it is at the discretion of the mother of the child that joint registration will take place? It would thus remain the prerogative of the mother to decide whether she wants to register jointly with a male — the father of the child — and so create the legal relationship between that person and the child.
There have been some suggestions that measures in the Bill should have retrospective application. That has been resisted, and I agree with the decision. Generally, one has to be very cautious about applying legislation retrospectively. The existing procedures, under what will become the old law, are available to rectify a position were an unmarried father wants to be in a legal relationship and there is overall consent to that. One area where retrospective application would be very useful is in relation to tax cuts. However, that involves another aspect of the Minister’s remit and is a matter for another day.
Finally, the last part of the Bill, which recognises the major changes in science that enable DNA testing to establish parenthood, is sensible and welcome. I generally welcome the Bill and give it my support.

Mr Francie Molloy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the Bill. This is an important stage we are going through. I speak as Chairperson of the Finance and Personnel Committee, which is dealing with the Bill. One of the issues that the Committee raised is that this type of Bill would probably be more suitable for, and sit better with, Health and Social Services or Social Development. We recommended to the Speaker that some of these Bills should be redirected. It is not a matter of getting out of the work — there are issues that would be dealt with by Health and Social Services or Social Development, and we need to have an input from those Departments and Committees to ensure that all the issues affected by this Bill are covered. However, the Bill is coming from the Office of Law Reform, so responsibility rests with Finance and Personnel. Our Committee will deal with it as quickly as possible.
It is important that we recognise the many issues in the Bill. There are human rights issues, competing rights issues, issues of father-and-children relationships and father-and-mother relationships. As the Deputy Chairperson has said, there is the matter of the mother having the final say and the matter of the Bill’s not being used as a means of exercising control without responsibility. That latter aspect was raised by a number of people.
Human rights issues — and competing rights within those —will be raised by the Bill. I hope that members of other Committees who have issues that they want to raise will come forward to the Finance and Personnel Committee and raise them in the public sessions that will be held.
I will also alert members of the public today that this is an issue that they can have an input in. The Finance and Personnel Committee wants to hear their views and there will be an open session for them to exercise that right. The Committee will deal with the Bill as speedily as possible, and I hope that we will have input from both Members and the public. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Alban Maginness: I welcome the Bill. Mr Leslie mentioned its pioneering aspects, particularly the provision relating to unmarried fathers. If we value devolution and self-government, we should be innovative and pioneering. I will resist using the new verb that Mr Leslie has produced — "to guinea-pig" — but if one were to adopt that new verb, one should be prepared to be innovative. The term "guinea-pigging" is wrong because it suggests experimentation, and this is not necessarily experimentation.
The reason this Bill comes before the House, and why it is necessary to initiate these reforms, is that we have seen a social revolution in how people wish to live together. Regrettably the traditional marriage family unit is now almost on a par with people simply cohabiting. There are other reasons for people to cohabit: family breakdowns, marriage breakdowns, and complicated life situations. The traditional family unit has been eroded — sometimes through choice, and sometimes not. In any event, the important thing to remember when dealing with this Bill is that we have a new situation, and we have to deal with that.
In 1998 there were 6,743 live births outside marriage, which represents 28·5% of all live births. Interestingly 4,348 of those births were registered jointly — both parents were registered on the birth certificates of those children. This indicates — and research by the Department and the Office of Law Reform appears to confirm it — that people want to declare publicly they are the parents, and implicit in that is a father’s accepting responsibility for his child. This Bill goes a long way to recognise that and enable unmarried fathers to acquire parental responsibility, an important public demonstration by unmarried fathers of that responsibility. This option is the best choice on the parts of the Department and the Office of Law Reform to deal with the new situation in society, and we should welcome the Bill.
It is also fair to say that there has been a very low uptake of existing legal mechanisms. That indicates that people are unaware of them or find them too cumbersome. That is an important point to take into consideration. The low uptake does not represent an unwillingness to take up responsibility. If one looks at the overall figure, one sees that 64% of unmarried fathers and mothers are prepared to register a birth jointly, so there clearly is a willingness to accept responsibility.
The Minister’s proposed change to the law is to be welcomed. It is a common-sense way forward in this situation.
There was a reasonably good response to the Office of Law Reform’s consultation paper. The responses were of good quality. There was a consensus of support for this change. I also welcome the change in the way that parentage is determined, insofar as body samples will now be permitted. That is a significant step forward, because such procedures are less invasive than blood sampling. That is in keeping with the advance in our technology for determining parentage. I welcome that as well.

Prof Monica McWilliams: The Minister used the word "cautious". Until the Bill goes through the Committee Stage I will remain cautious about what amendments will be accepted. This is clearly an important piece of legislation, particularly as it is to be introduced into Northern Ireland simultaneously with a number of other pieces of legislation such as the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill, which we discussed the week before last. There is some overlap between these two pieces of legislation, and the explanatory notes acknowledge that.
I was pleased that the Chairperson of the Finance and Personnel Committee addressed the overlap of Statutory Committee business. This issue has come up before in the Business Committee, and the Chairperson said that the Speaker had been asked to address it. Where the subject matter of a piece of legislation falls within the remit of more than one Committee, the Chairpersons of those Committees should consult and agree to which Committee the matter should fall for disposal.
I am happy for this Bill to be considered by the Finance and Personnel Committee at this stage. However, the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee is currently dealing with an inter-country adoption Bill. That will be with us shortly. That Bill also addresses the issue of stepfathers and adoption. It may be important for our Committee to be asked to look at this, because Standing Order 48(2) goes further.
My question to the Minister is: was the question of which Committee should accept this Bill discussed in detail? I am aware that the Office of Law Reform’s responsibilities are part of the Minister’s portfolio, but given the particular details of this Bill, and given that the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is currently dealing with children’s rights and parental responsibilities, that process must be elaborated.
At this stage it is going to the Department of Finance and Personnel. I suggest that the public be made aware of that. The public does not understand the workings of the Assembly. I know that the Office of Law Reform had a consultation paper. As this goes through the Committee Stage, many people may think that this is something to do with children — which it is — and will not, therefore, be aware that the Department of Finance and Personnel is dealing with it.
The Assembly ought to look at ways of publishing its future business, showing which Committees are accepting which pieces of legislation. That is what the Oireachtas does. That should be published in newspapers. Given the impact of this legislation, parents — particularly those who have children outside marriage — should be made aware of the changes we are about to make.
Regarding the overlapping of Committees, I hope that the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee will be invited to look at this issue and report to the Finance and Personnel Committee. When we came into the Assembly we made the important point that when dealing with children and families we should highlight interdepartmental responsibility and should not let anyone down by simply putting an issue into one box. Given the Health, Personal Social Services and Public Safety issues currently being discussed, I make a plea for us to have the right to make that input. I hope that will be welcome.
I would like the Minister to address further the issue, highlighted in his introduction, that a court may terminate some orders. This is probably the major concern. Alban Maginness addressed the issue of the changes in families and social trends. Some 7,000 children are born outside marriage, yet the Minister tells us that parental responsibility orders are in place for fewer than 200 of them. This will have a huge impact. The Minister may not be able to give me an immediate response, but how many of the 7,000 born outside marriage are jointly registered? Probably time will tell, given James Leslie’s understanding that joint registration is at the discretion of the mother. That may alarm some women, particularly in cases of violence. That is one of my major concerns, and I am therefore interested in the Minister’s point.
I would like more detail on this. Parental rights may be laid down by joint registration, but shortly thereafter enormous problems can arise. For the protection of children and women, a court needs to address that issue very carefully. I note, from the human rights section of the explanatory notes, that it was argued, in the case of McMichael versus the UK, that the non-automatic granting of parental rights to unmarried fathers was a justified interference with family life to protect the rights of others — women and children — from unmeritorious fathers.
Not much has changed since that case went through. That is where my major concern lies. I have worked closely with those experiencing the enormous problems that arise in cases of sexual and physical abuse towards both children and their mothers. An issue also arises about custodial rights. It is extremely important that that should be addressed very carefully.
On the issue of non-invasive methods of determining parenthood, it again looks as though a step forward is being taken. Anything non-invasive can only be useful, and we welcome the consultation process on this. The Children’s Law Centre, and others, may have some concerns on how this will be carried out.
One of the largest problems is the determining of biological parenthood in the case of a father. Clearly that matter has wide implications for the Department for Social Development — it caused quite a discussion in the Assembly when the issue of child support came up. The biggest concern is whether this is a piece of legislation that can enable biological fathers to be determined — so that child support can then be paid accordingly — or whether it is for humanitarian reasons. All Assembly Members have been lobbied by a group called Families Need Fathers, which argues that Northern Ireland is dissimilar to England and Wales in relation to the rights of fathers. I ask the Minister to address that matter.
12.00
It seems that the point we are making today is that we are the first to introduce this legislation. In its responses to consultation, Families Need Fathers argued that it would like the situation in Northern Ireland to be similar to the situation everywhere else. That is causing some confusion. I take it that we are the first.
It is also important that this is seen as a package of family law reform. I am familiar with the excellent work carried out by the Office of Law Reform to date. I take the opportunity to commend it for leading the field on family law in Northern Ireland. Were it not for the work of the Office of Law Reform many families would have suffered because of the consequences of not taking on board recent trends and changes that research showed would need to be noted when legislation was being introduced in Northern Ireland. With that in mind I hope that the Office of Law Reform will follow that excellent tradition and that we will not introduce legislation which might lead to problems further down the road.

Mr Nigel Dodds: I generally welcome the proposals contained in the Bill, and I concur with a number of the comments that have already been made. I want to make some specific points, and I look forward to dealing with the Bill when it comes before the Finance and Personnel Committee.
The clause relating to the presumption of parentage is, as the Minister has said, a tidying-up exercise. It puts existing common law on a statutory footing. That will not cause any great controversy.
The clause dealing with tests for determining parentage is a step forward. The Minister indicated that the clause is in line with proposals and practices elsewhere, and he mentioned other parts of the UK, the Republic of Ireland, and so on. I am keen to know whether this matter has been given statutory effect in any of those regions or countries. The issue of "guinea-pigging" has been raised. Are we the first to give this matter legislative effect? The Minister seemed to indicate that it was happening elsewhere. The Bill is welcome nonetheless.
My main point concerns the first substantive clause, which deals with how unmarried fathers acquire legal parental rights. As the Minister indicated, the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 sets out the current position in relation to acquiring parental responsibility, which is defined as
"all the rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority which by law a parent of a child has in relation to the child and his property."
That takes us so far, but it does not set out what those rights, duties, powers and responsibilities are. It is almost nebulous. There are various provisions in law that deal with the issue. However, does the Minister, his Department or the Office for Law Reform have any plans for further defining those parental rights, duties powers, and so on? Have they considered what those rights should be as part of their work on this Bill or perhaps for a future Bill? They are not defined at present.
Mr Maginness pointed out the figure of 28·5% as the number of live births outside marriage in 1998 in Northern Ireland. He rightly highlighted the impact of that figure. More than a quarter of all babies in Northern Ireland are born outside marriage. That is a significant figure, and it represents an issue that needs to be addressed, a major social issue, for which there are many reasons. It is interesting that in the case of almost 60% of live births the unmarried father registered jointly with the mother and, in so doing, was making a statement about taking legal responsibility. In many cases, as has been said, they were probably not aware that, in law, this was a pretty meaningless exercise. The purpose of this legislation is very welcome. It will be in line with what people think they are signing up to.
The Minister said that under the new provisions an unmarried father could only register with the agreement of the mother. We will look at this in detail when it comes before the Committee, but I would like to ask whether that provision — that caveat, as it were — is contained in the legislation. Will it be a statutory provision that a mother can refuse to allow the unmarried father to be registered? If it is not in the Bill, I would be interested to know where it is contained. It is important, as a number of Members have said, given the fact that registration will have a legal effect, which it does not have at the moment. Clearly we will look at some of these issues in detail, but it would be helpful if the Minister could give us an outline answer at this stage to some of the questions that have been asked.
In general terms, this Bill is to be welcomed, and we will certainly give it a fair wind.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the idea that this Bill should have a cross-departmental focus, particularly when it comes to health, social services and public safety. It is a Bill that needs to be dealt with sensitively and sensibly. My party has already been in preliminary consultations with individuals and groups — the stakeholders in this area — and a number of concerns have been expressed, particularly by people working at the coalface with victims of abusive relationships. There are some concerns that the parental responsibility order will be used by some men as a means of controlling the mother. I am not saying that that will happen in every case. It is also very clear that there are unmarried fathers who want to play a very positive role in the upbringing of their children. There needs to be a balance of the rights of mothers, fathers and children.
There are also some concerns about the future. What impact will this have, for example, on schooling or if a child goes into hospital? A father who may not have had anything to do with the day-to-day upbringing of the child — and in most cases it is the mother who is responsible for the day-to-day rearing of the child — could have an equal right to register the child in school and make decisions about hospital treatment.
We need to be very careful. Many concerns have been expressed about this Bill. Like Monica McWilliams, I urge the Minister and his Department to ensure that members of the public are made fully aware that this Bill is before the Committee.
Wide consultation is needed with groups such as Families Need Fathers, women’s groups and lawyers, who are at the coalface defending and helping single mothers and victims of abusive relationships. I would like to see a good deal more debate on this, and I urge the Department to ensure that public consultation is as wide as possible during this Bill’s passage through the Committee Stage. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Mark Durkan: Clearly, Members appreciate that this reform measure will have a significant impact on family relationships in Northern Ireland. I must rehearse certain points in order to deal with Members’ questions. In examining these law reform measures we have taken account of views expressed during the consultation which was carried out after the Office of Law Reform issued its proposals. I can reassure people that human rights and equality issues have been given particular consideration and that this will continue. We want to ensure that the rights of children are enhanced and that they are never compromised.
MrLeslie welcomed the Bill and sought reassurance that the legislation would not apply retrospectively. The Bill will have no material effect on the legal responsibilities of parents of children whose births have already been registered. Similarly, we will ensure that there is a strong public awareness of the Bill. We will also try to ensure that a greater number of existing fathers are made more aware of the provisions available to them. Several Members have indicated that some fathers are making incorrect presumptions about current legal provisions. A widespread publicity campaign for the new legislation is expected.
MrLeslie also asked me to confirm that joint registration is at the discretion of the mother. This is the case, and it is clear in the legislation. MrDodds asked if this is provided for in statute and, if so, how. The mother’s right to refuse registration by the father is already contained in the Births and Deaths Registration (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, and the Bill will not change this.
As Chairperson of the Finance and Personnel Committee, MrMolloy made several points about procedure and asked which Committee would be best placed to consider the Bill. When the Assembly decides which Committee can best consider this legislation — whether it be an existing Committee or some other arrangement is made — I will support that choice. The Office of Law Reform is part of the Department of Finance and Personnel under statute and under the agreement. The Finance and Personnel Committee is there to advise and assist me as Minister, so I will consult with that Committee on any proposal for legislation within my ambit. I am open to suggestions from the Committee and the Assembly on where such a Bill might best be considered and on how best to take on board the insights and interests of other Committees. I am used to dealing with an increasing number of Committees these days, so one more would not be too much of a problem.
I hope that no question will arise of the legislation’s being orphaned because, while several Committees have a degree of interest in it, none has sufficient interest to deal with it all. We must not get into a situation where it is difficult to get Committees to consider legislation which the Office of Law Reform believes important for the Assembly. As Mr Molloy and Prof McWilliams have pointed out, we all need to give more thought to how best the Assembly can consider these matters.
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)
Mr Molloy also stressed the need to balance the human rights of children with those of parents. This Bill takes the rights of unmarried fathers and mothers and their children into account. What are the legally recognised rights and the legally presumed rights of unmarried fathers? In the agreement and in section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act, commitments and provisions were made to ensure equality of treatment, and one of the issues which confronts us is that of unmarried parents. We need to bear the equality principle in mind when deciding how to deal with some of these issues.
Mr Maginness noted that the legislation takes account of changing family relationships and referred to the many births which are jointly registered at present. Almost 64% of the births that take place outside marriage are jointly registered. Members may make their own assumptions about what that figure represents. Like Mr Maginness, Mr Dodds interprets it to mean that a large number of unmarried fathers want to take parental responsibility. It is probable that they believe that they are doing just that by jointly registering. They may not be aware that they need to take separate legal action to ensure that their responsibility and relationship are legally recognised.
Under the existing provisions of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 an unmarried father may acquire responsibility for a child. Obviously we want to make this information readily available, understandable and accessible in our new legislation. People need to be made aware of these changes to understand the system which will apply in future and to understand that it does not have retrospective application. To this end, there will be an information campaign.
Prof McWilliams raised a question on whether the power of the courts to terminate parental responsibility had been fully explored. Provision to terminate the recognition of parental responsibility already exists in statute and is not diminished by this legislation. Obviously, it will need application to the court.
Prof McWilliams also asked about the motive behind the legislation, possibly because of other legislation that has come through, and whether the legislation was more to do with enabling particular payments than with anything else. The purpose of the legislation is to encourage and to facilitate unmarried fathers to have a full and legal relationship with their children, something that the vast majority of unmarried fathers and mothers wish to see.
Prof McWilliams also made the important point that the Bill should not be seen in isolation but in the context of a much wider package of family law provisions and reforms. I want to join with MsMcWilliams in commending the work of the Office of Law Reform in keeping family law under constant review. The office has recently consulted on reforms to divorce law, to the physical punishment of children and to improvements in domestic violence legislation. I will bring any further reform measures to the Executive and Assembly.
The Bill’s intention is to implement the considered outcome of the reforms that were put out to consultation in July1999. Other reforms may be forthcoming, but we can only bring forward those reforms that have been the subject of due consultation, especially as many Members have stressed the importance of public reflection.
Nigel Dodds raised the issue of the rationale behind the statutory presumptions of paternity and what happens elsewhere. Other jurisdictions are considering some of the issues we are currently discussing. There are proposals in Scotland, England and Wales that joint registration of a child’s birth should confer parental responsibility on the unmarried father. The Republic requires that a child’s birth should be jointly registered before a court will issue a consent order providing for an unmarried father to be a child’s guardian.
This Bill’s provisions are somewhat different. Clause 2 seeks to clarify the common law presumption about married fathers and recognise the de facto situation that a man registered as a child’s father is that child’s father. As Mr Dodds said, it is a tidying-up operation. Common law is increasingly being replaced by statute, which is more accessible and more easily understood. In relation to Mr Dodds’s question, Scotland already has those statutory presumptions.
Mr Dodds also spoke about the definition of parental responsibility. The term "parental responsibility" is now understood by the courts. We perhaps need to be careful about defining the term more specifically in legislation, as that may be unduly restrictive. The current position allows for a degree of flexibility to cover the wide variety of circumstances in which it is required before the courts. I have already dealt with some of MrDodds’s other points.
Dr O’Hagan raised the question of violence against women and children and, in particular, registered the concern of some key interests that the provisions of the Bill may create some greater risks. I stress that minimising the risk of violence in family relationships is a major priority of mine with the development of family law. The Bill will not increase the risk of violence between partners or towards their children. An unmarried father or a step-parent’s parental responsibility can always be terminated by court order if it can be proved that it would be in the interest of a child to do so.
The existing legislation on domestic violence, sponsored by the Department of Finance and Personnel through the work of the Office of Law Reform, is already recognised as one of the most progressive pieces of legislation of its kind. The operation of that legislation is currently under review to ensure that it affords all victims of domestic violence the protection they deserve.
Guidance issued to schools, education and library boards and teachers’ unions by the Department of Education on 16 June 1999 set out the current law on parental responsibility and its implications for schools. The guidance deals with the position of unmarried fathers, on which my officials were consulted. Officials in the Office of Law Reform will liaise with colleagues in education about the need to issue fresh guidance once the Assembly has finalised the content of the Bill.
The consultation paper on which the proposals are based was published in July 1999. It was sent to 185 individuals and organisations representing local community and voluntary groups, health boards and trusts, churches, the legal profession, academics, men’s and women’s groups, the judiciary and all the main political parties in Northern Ireland. Thirty-four substantive responses were received from all the main bodies involved. These were well considered and generally supportive. However, some points of concern have been registered, and we want to ensure that they, as well as all other considerations, are fully reflected on as the Bill goes through its Assembly stages.
I hope I have covered all the points raised by Members. If not, I am sure I will be made aware of that shortly. Any outstanding points will be dealt with in writing in due course.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Second Stage of the Family Law Bill [NIA Bill 4/00] be agreed.

Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill: Consideration Stage

Mr Speaker: No amendments have been tabled, so I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to group the five clauses of the Bill.
Leave granted.
Clauses 1 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule agreed to.
Long title agreed to.

Mr Speaker: That concludes the Assembly’s consideration of the Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill, which now stands referred to the Speaker.
The sitting was suspended at 12.30 pm.
On resuming —

Oral Answers to Questions

Office of First minister and deputy first minister

Mr Speaker: Questions 6, 12 and 13 will now receive written answers from the Department of Finance and Personnel. Also, I am advised that Mr George Savage and Mr Tom Benson are unable to be here and that the questions in their names have been withdrawn.

British-Irish Council

Mr James Leslie: 2. asked the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to make a statement on the work of the British-Irish Council.
(AQO237/00)

Mr Seamus Mallon: The British-Irish Council (BIC), established under the Good Friday Agreement, is an important forum for exchanging information and consultation in endeavouring to agree on matters of mutual interest. It has the potential to benefit all the regions represented. To date, there has been one plenary meeting of the BIC and one sectoral meeting. The Council agreed a programme of work at the plenary meeting on 17 December 1999. It was decided that five areas of work would be taken forward in sectoral format. The Irish Government are leading on drugs, the Scottish Executive and the Cabinet of the National Assembly for Wales are jointly working on social inclusion, the Northern Ireland Executive will take the lead on transport, Jersey will lead on the knowledge economy and the British Government on the environment.
A sectoral meeting on the environment was held in London on 9 October 2000. The Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Education attended. Earlier today, the Minister of the Environment made a statement on the meeting, in which he informed the Assembly that the environment sectoral group discussed a wide range of future priority areas. In the next few months, that group will consider radioactive waste from Sellafield, the impact of climate change and waste management. It is anticipated that the next plenary meeting of the BIC will take place this month in Dublin and will focus on the issue of drugs.

Mr James Leslie: I thank the Deputy First Minister for his comprehensive answer and trust that his worthy aspirations will soon be transposed into action. I hope that the frequency of the meetings will increase.
In view of the legacy of poor transport co-ordination between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom resulting from direct rule, can the Deputy First Minister assure me that specific attention will be paid to improving transport links between Northern Ireland and Scotland and the north of England?

Mr Seamus Mallon: The Member raises an important point. Transport links with cities in Scotland, England and Wales are crucial for the people of Northern Ireland. This matter was raised at the first plenary meeting of the BIC. It was also raised at the first meeting of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, and it will be deliberated upon further at future BIC meetings. I have no doubt that the Minister of the Environment will wish to take it forward.

Mr Eugene McMenamin: Can the Deputy First Minister assure us that the transport sectoral meeting will proceed within the BIC and North/South Ministerial Council context? Will he press the Minister for Regional Development to fulfil his obligations? Failing that, will the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister assume this urgent responsibility?

Mr Seamus Mallon: The Northern Ireland Executive will be leading the transport sectoral meeting of the British-Irish Council. The First Minister and I will be responsible for taking this issue forward in the absence of co-operation from the Minister responsible, the Minister for Regional Development. In relation to the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) transport sectoral meeting, the First Minister and I will be pressing the Minister for Regional Development to meet the responsibilities of his office, and we shall ourselves take responsibility for proceeding on this issue. An NSMC transport meeting has been proposed for the second half of November.

Mr Edwin Poots: Can the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister confirm that the British-Irish Council will continue in its present format and that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will not stop IRA/Sinn Féin Ministers from attending?

Mr Seamus Mallon: I thank the Assemblyman for his question. The British-Irish Council meetings will proceed. The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will make nominations and, as usual, will bring those nominations to the attention of the Executive and, through it, to the Assembly.

Mr Alex Maskey: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. In the light of the First Minister’s recent stance on the attendance of Sinn Féin Ministers at North/South Ministerial Council meetings, what assurance do we have that the future functioning of the British-Irish Council will take place without such undemocratic interference, which is also a breach of his Pledge of Office?

Mr Seamus Mallon: I thank the Assemblyman for his question, which is essentially the same as Mr Poots’s. The answer remains unchanged. I repeat: nominations will be made on the basis of equity and reported to the Executive and, through it, to the Assembly.

Mr Sammy Wilson: First, I would like to say how nice it is to see that the Deputy First Minister and the First Minister have kissed and made up, and are sitting together again.
Does the Deputy First Minister agree that, given his previous response, it is somewhat hypocritical of the First Minister to have excluded IRA/Sinn Féin from meetings of the North/South Ministerial Council while at the same time finding their presence at the British-Irish Council acceptable? Is that not yet another example of a tame slap on the wrist for Sinn Féin, intended more to keep his party dissidents in line than to deal with the question of terrorists in Government?

Mr Seamus Mallon: I thank the Assemblyman for the question, which — believe it or not — we had anticipated. I am glad he recognises that the First Minster and I have a very good personal relationship and that, in any political process, there will be divergences of opinion. The strength of any such process is that those divergences are overcome. I can assure the Assemblyman that the First Minister and I will do all we can to ensure that the institutions with which we are involved, and for which we have responsibility, proceed.

Mr Speaker: Before a point of order is raised, I should say that I am not entirely sure — I shall have to check up on it — whether kissing and making up is parliamentary behaviour.

Review of Public Administration

Mr Alan McFarland: 3. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to provide an update on progress with a review of public administration; and to make a statement.
(AQO234/00)

Rt Hon David Trimble: The completion of the review of public administration is an important aspect of the draft Programme for Government. As that document makes clear, the Executive are committed to greater accountability at regional level than in the past and will expect greater accountability from all services through a more efficient and effective structure of administration at local level. Officials are currently carrying out preparatory work on the review for the Executive, and it is planned that the terms of reference and organisation of the review will be further considered by the Executive later this month.

Mr Alan McFarland: Can the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister confirm that, as a matter of urgency, the review will consider the large number of expensive and unelected quangos that have had such a detrimental effect in the past 25 years?

Rt Hon David Trimble: It is called a review of public administration and is, as such, intended to cover comprehensively all the bodies outside the Departments. The Member will recall that, as far back as December 1998, when we agreed on the departmental structure, we gave a commitment to examine the administrative structure outside the Departments and to do what we could to achieve greater efficiency and to balance some of the additional costs resulting from the enlarged central structure.
Consequently, we will be looking seriously — and hope the review will too — at a whole range of issues, including the various quangos. I am not saying that all quangos are bad. We will look critically to see what is necessary, what will contribute to greater efficiency and accountability and what can be done better elsewhere, which could result in a number of different answers. The review will look at those things. Currently, we are examining the scope of the review, which will be comprehensive, and making the arrangements. We hope that this will be done as quickly as possible.

Mr Peter Robinson: It is outrageous that the Minister responsible for the Department of the Environment should make a statement on his responsibilities at a party political gathering. The only other public utterance on this matter was from the First Minister at the SOLACE conference. They should have come instead to the Assembly or the Committee to give their views and say that a review was under way. Will the First Minister tell us what representations he has made to get the next local government elections postponed and thus save the hides of his Ulster Unionist Council colleagues from defeat — doing a "Burnside"?

Rt Hon David Trimble: The Member’s initial comments are completely wide of the mark. If he had only listened to my previous answer he would have heard that this issue was raised back in December 1998 and has been consequently mentioned here several times. I recall answering questions on this subject in the Assembly. The pretended shock of the Member that a statement was made by the Minister, quite properly, at our party conference is rather laughable.
With regard to his second question, he will discover how wrong his comments are. I would advise him to look at the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ opinion poll of a few weeks ago and see how the standing of my party has risen among the public while that of his party continues to decline.

Programme for Government (Rural Areas)

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: 4. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to detail how the Programme for Government has been rural proofed.
AQO240/00

Mr Seamus Mallon: The draft Programme for Government laid before the Assembly on 24 October recognises the importance of the rural economy and society to the life of Northern Ireland, and the need to ensure that full account is taken of rural issues when developing major policies and programmes. Rural proofing is a concept that involves reviewing all major policies and programmes in a structured way to ensure that any rural dimension has been fully taken into account at the formulation stage. It is a commitment, in the draft Programme for Government, that all major policies and programmes will be rural proofed. The Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development will take the lead on that issue and will establish a group to set out an overall approach to rural and countryside issues.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: The Deputy First Minister will be aware that the First Minister has just recommended that my Friend read the ‘Belfast Telegraph’. I recommend that he read today’s ‘Belfast Telegraph’ article on the pig industry. The amazing and tragic figures show that, within three years, the number of farmers in the Province with pig herds has more than halved — falling from 2,207 to only 960. If this trend continues we will have no viable pig industry in Northern Ireland.
Can he explain to the House — long before we have a report on the rural proofing that he is concerned about, and that I and my Committee are concerned about — what steps he can take now to step in and deal with this crisis?

Mr Seamus Mallon: This is a serious question about a serious issue. The Member will recognise that it is a matter to be dealt with specifically by the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development. He should look at, as I am sure he has looked at, the various measures, which I will not repeat ad infinitum, in relation to agriculture that are included in the Programme for Government.
Although I cannot give the Member any assurances in relation to the pig industry, I share his concern, which I will convey immediately to the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development. I have no doubt that she will contact him in relation to that consultation.

Mr P J Bradley: In the context of rural proofing, does the Minister share the farming community’s anxiety about flood damage and losses due to unharvested crops and the risk to livestock and households? Will Northern Ireland receive a share of the additional resources being promised by the British Government to combat the effects of flooding?

Mr Seamus Mallon: That question is particularly relevant at this time. Members will join with me in expressing sympathy for people in York and in various parts of England, Wales and the Republic of Ireland who are suffering dreadfully from flooding. I want to associate myself with the Member’s concern about our own farmers and the problems that they face, especially in relation to livestock and certain crops.
I can assure the Member that Northern Ireland will receive its full Barnett share of the £51 million package announced by the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott. That amount should be approximately £1·7 million. That aid package will be allocated over the coming years. Officials in the Department of Finance and Personnel will liaise with the Treasury on that.
The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s Rivers Agency, as the drainage and flood defence authority in Northern Ireland, already has 100 flood-alleviation projects at various stages of investigation and development. The Executive will keep a close eye on the issue, which has enormous implications not only for the farming community but throughout rural and urban Northern Ireland. We will do everything we possibly can to help those who unfortunately may be affected by it.

Mr David Ford: I thank the Minister for his references to the urgency of rural proofing in Northern Ireland. Will he accept, however, that there are two major problems which arise from the Robson index of deprivation? First, it is significantly out of date. Secondly, particularly in rural areas, much poverty is hidden within more prosperous wards which does not appear in the index. Can the Minister give us an undertaking that those measures will be re-examined to ensure that we can rural proof properly in the future?

Mr Seamus Mallon: That is a question that we are all concerned about. It is tempting to think of poverty in terms of urban areas. All of us know that this type of poverty exists in rural areas. It is more a lace-curtain poverty than may be obvious in urban areas. The Robson indicators are being re-examined in the light of the circumstances that we face today. It is essential that we all recognise the isolation and deprivation that exist in rural areas. That is why it is so important that we have rural proofing in relation to every aspect of the Administration.

Victims Units (OFMDFM and NIO)

Mrs Eileen Bell: 5. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to clarify the relationship between the Victims Unit in their office and the Victims Liaison Unit in the Northern Ireland Office; and to make a statement.
(AQO246/00)

Rt Hon David Trimble: During direct rule, after receipt of Sir Kenneth Bloomfield’s report ‘We Will Remember Them’, the Northern Ireland Office set up the Victims Liaison Unit. After devolution, and in recognition of the fact that many of the issues faced by victims fell within the transferred field, a Victims Unit was set up in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.
In broad terms, the Victims Unit within OFMDFM has responsibility for all transferred matters, with the NIO retaining responsibility for reserved matters. The Junior Ministers in OFMDFM have met with Adam Ingram to discuss the most appropriate division of responsibilities between the two units. They are due to meet again soon.
Officials from both units are working closely together and endeavouring to ensure that the Northern Ireland Office and this Administration adopt a co-ordinated approach to meet victims’ needs.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I thank the First Minister for his answer. I am sure that he agrees that this sensitive area requires a focused and one-track approach, because I — like other Members, I am sure — have heard from individual victims and victims’ organisations that they are concerned about what is happening. They are unsure about the situation. I ask the First Minister to take that on board for future meetings.

Rt Hon David Trimble: I appreciate the difficulties that have resulted from having two different groupings — one in the Northern Ireland Office and one in this Administration. That is necessary at present, because some of the issues that the Victims Liaison Unit deals with are clearly reserved matters, such as compensation.
In addition, this Administration has only recently established a Victims Unit. That is still developing, which is why we are currently engaged in discussions with the Northern Ireland Office. I refer the Member to the Programme for Government, which, I think, identifies six specific actions. We intend to develop a programme. We need to work with the Victims Liaison Unit, and we hope to make matters as user-friendly as possible for the various individuals and interests involved, but at present it is necessary for bifurcation.

Mr Nigel Dodds: When dealing with the issue of victims, will the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister take into account the great hurt and concern of victims’ families and others in the community about the amount of public money given in recent years to the victims of violence as compared to the amounts given to perpetrators of violence, many of whom were released prematurely from prison at the behest of the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and their supporters?
Will he also accept that the contrast between cash given to terrorists and cash given to victims adds insult to the injury that was inflicted on families when they saw those who perpetrated crimes against their loved ones walking free, seemingly without any justice being meted out?

Rt Hon David Trimble: We are, of course, keenly conscious of victims’ feelings and the need to ensure that victims’ interests are not forgotten. That is why the Bloomfield Report was originally commissioned; that is why we are working on the matter. One difficulty is that, until recently, victims did not organise themselves in the way that other groups did. That has caused problems. There is also — I have to be frank — a problem caused by people who wish to exploit victims for political purposes. That is generally deprecated.
We want to develop our own operation in order to ensure that proper concern is observed. I cannot go into the question of funding, because we are not responsible for any funding at present. The Victims Liaison Unit and the core funding scheme that it administers deal with current funding. I am not in a position to comment on that. Our own unit, which is now being established, has among its objectives the development and management of a specific measure under the Peace II programme. We will be happy to accept responsibility for the operation of that measure when it starts.

Mr Alex Maskey: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Given that the Bloomfield Report actually reinforced the notion of a hierarchy of victims in many ways, can the First and Deputy First Ministers ensure, or at least try to guarantee, that the Victims Unit will in no way agree with that notional hierarchy? Although Members have different views about victims, there is obviously a range of victims in our society. Can the First and the Deputy First Ministers assure us that they will work to ensure that the Victims Unit reaches out proactively to all victims and organisations?

Rt Hon David Trimble: It is the intention of the Victims Unit to be comprehensive when dealing with, or trying to address, the problems of victims. The question is, what is the definition of a victim? An all-encompassing definition of a victim is extremely difficult to determine, particularly as there is an element of self-definition involved. The interdepartmental working group has adopted the following definition:
"the surviving injured of violent conflict-related incidents and those close relatives or partners who care for them, along with those close relatives and partners who mourn their dead."

Prof Monica McWilliams: Will the First Minister at this stage — in the same way that he has been very proactive on the suggestion that we transfer the justice issue to Northern Ireland as soon as possible — consider a deadline for the closure of the Northern Ireland Office Victims Liaison Unit? To have two offices running simultaneously is creating confusion among the public.
Does he agree that although Assembly Members may understand the difference between transferred matters and reserved matters, victims do not? Does he also agree that the sooner Junior Ministers are clearly identified with a strategy for victims, the better it will be for those dealing with victims throughout the country?

Rt Hon David Trimble: The Member is aware of the difference between reserved matters and transferred matters, and, at the moment, that necessarily produces a distinction between those matters still within the remit of the Northern Ireland Office. I would be delighted if we could resolve that situation through the devolution of more responsibility to this Administration.
We have set ourselves a target — for the Victims Liaison Unit and those transferred matters for which we are responsible — that by April 2001 we will put in place a cross-departmental strategy to ensure that victims’ needs are met effectively. That strategy will be of some help to groups that currently have difficulty in knowing who to approach.

Mr Speaker: As the Member due to ask the next question is not in the Chamber, we will move to question 8.

Disability Rights (Equality Commission)

Ms Patricia Lewsley: 8. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to detail what financial provision has been made for the Equality Commission to enforce disability rights.
(AQO253/00)

Rt Hon David Trimble: The Equality Commission has an overall budget of £6·949 million for the current year. That includes additional resources of £1 million that had been provided to the Equality Commission to enable it to carry out the enforcement of disability rights. Those rights are contained in legislation that was initiated in the Assembly. The Executive’s budget proposals, which were announced by the Minister of Finance and Personnel on 17 October, include the continuation of this £1 million funding in the year 2001-02.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: I ask that our Disability Rights Task Force ensure that it pays particular attention to the issue of employment Directives.

Rt Hon David Trimble: The Member is referring to the recent EU Equal Treatment Directive, which is an important matter that is currently under consideration. The Directive has an impact on the operation of the UK Disability Rights Task Force, which reported, on which cross-border departments were in the process of considering their response. We now must consider the report in the light of the Equal Treatment Directive in order to ensure that what is done gives full effect to the directive.

Mr Jim Wells: Can the First Minister assure us that this new unit will have the same powers of investigation as the Equality Commission. Will it be able to search out injustices when it comes to this important issue?

Rt Hon David Trimble: We are talking about the powers of the Equality Commission. The Equality Commission will have those powers. The Disability Rights Task Force was established to advise the Government, and it reported in December 1999. Its report is being considered in the light of the Equal Treatment Directive in order to ensure that what must be done is done over a wide range of services. The Equality Commission will police that activity.

Children

Mr Seamus Close: 9. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister if it is intended to appoint a children’s commissioner for Northern Ireland.
(AQO250/00)

Mr Seamus Mallon: The Executive are determined to ensure that our arrangements for protecting children and upholding children’s rights are based on best practice. We will carefully examine key developments through Europe, including the Waterhouse Report on child abuse in north Wales, the appointment of a Children’s Commissioner in Wales, a Children’s Rights Director in England and an Ombudsman for Children in the Republic of Ireland.
We will also look at the roles of commissioners for children in the Scandinavian countries. In the light of those developments, the Executive Committee will consider what new arrangements are needed here when formulating proposals for the Children’s Fund.

Mr Speaker: The time for Questions to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is up. Unfortunately, not only the Member who put question 9 but several others who indicated a wish to ask questions will be unable to ask supplementary questions on this occasion.

Marketing of Farm Produce

Mr Eddie McGrady: 1. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development if she will detail what action has been taken to resolve the problem outlined by the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee in its report ‘Retailing in Northern Ireland — A Fair Deal for the Farmer’ in relation to the absence of a comprehensive resource to assist farmers to identify, produce, package and distribute products to suit both their circumstances and those of the market; and if she will make a statement.
(AQO224/00)

Ms Brid Rodgers: As I said before, I welcomed the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee’s report as a balanced and pragmatic contribution to the debate on the difficulties currently facing the agrifood sector.
The Department already devotes considerable effort and resources to enable farmers and the wider agrifood industry to meet market demands and exploit new opportunities. An example of that is the ongoing comprehensive programme of educating and training farmers to develop their business management skills and meet customer demands. That involves working with farm businesses and producer groups to develop the competencies necessary to identify market trends and respond positively to them.
The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development also assists, through grant aid and technical support, the development of new technologies, products and processes for use by all links in the food chain. Collaboration in the marketing of produce is encouraged by providing financial support through the marketing development scheme. Capital grant assistance to improve the competitiveness of the agrifood sector is also provided through the processing and marketing grant scheme. I can confirm that that work is being enhanced.
My announcement earlier this year of the development of a farmers’ electronic portal — for which £240,000 has been provided this year, with a similar sum next year, coupled with associated enhanced IT facilities at the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development colleges — will help producers to take advantage of the opportunities that exist through information and communications technology, and e-commerce. The proposed additional funds of £1·4 million per annum that are to be allocated to support farm business development will also help in a practical way to enable primary producers to improve business performance.
The £2 million per annum being allocated to the beef sector to improve beef quality will help primary producers better meet the demands of the market.
(Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair)

Mr Eddie McGrady: I thank the Minister for her comprehensive reply — [Interruption].

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Mr Eddie McGrady: In view of what the Minister has said, and the reference to the many facilities available to make farming viable, does she consider that the adoption of a new attitude by the Department to treat farms as businesses and employ the services of other agencies, such as local enterprise development agencies with proper grant-aid and technology structures, would be useful to farmers in the transition between the farm gate and the market?
Will she also consider the great difficulties that the farming community has with regard to diversification, particularly when farm incomes and farmers’ resources are at an all-time low? That transition is very difficult.
As a corollary, will the Minister make herself aware of the consequences of farmers leaving the land or diversifying? Who will then be custodian of our agricultural heritage and countryside?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I agree with many of the issues that Mr McGrady has raised. My answer addressed many of those issues with regard to helping farms progress as businesses. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development enables farmers to treat their farms as businesses and to increase their competitiveness in the market.
The Member raised the issue of treating farms as small businesses for grant purposes, and many farmers have posed that question. For example, LEDU grants are available for start-up businesses, but the farming community sometimes feels that it is not entitled to them. The LEDU remit does not cover primary production. However, LEDU would consider issuing grants to farmers who wish to establish processing businesses and other businesses which fall under the diversification category. I encourage farmers to apply for this assistance, and I hope that LEDU will respond because farmers feel hard done by. It is possible to get access to those grants for certain businesses under diversification.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: The Minister is aware that the Assembly unanimously passed the resolution on the report mentioned in the question. How many of the recommendations in the report did the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development accept and bring to fruition through specially set-up machinery? How many recommendations  have been acted upon? That is an important question. Today’s ‘BelfastTelegraph’ features a report on the serious situation in the pig industry. More than half the herds have been lost in three years, and if any more are lost there will be no viable pig industry in Northern Ireland. The time has come for the Minister to announce the number of Agriculture Committee recommendations that  her Department has accepted and will act on.

Ms Brid Rodgers: The report contains recommendations directed at all the links in the food marketing chain, as well as the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the Department of the Environment. In my reply to the Committee, I was pleased to confirm that in most cases the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is already developing a range of initiatives aimed at addressing the underlying issues and concerns. Some of the proposals were for the industry and not the Department to develop. Some proposals would involve EU state-aid rules in which my Department would not be allowed to intervene. However, I am developing all the proposals that are within my powers, and I have already outlined some of them to the Committee.
DrPaisley mentioned the pig industry. I am aware of the difficulties there. I also share the Member’s frustration at the European Commission’s slow response to our attempt to gain permission to restructure.
Several questions have been raised, and as soon as we responded to them other questions were sent to us. It has been a slow process. I raised the issue with NickBrown, who wrote to CommissionerFischler. I raised it again at the previous meeting of regional Ministers, and Nick Brown wrote to assure me that he personally had raised the matter with CommissionerFischler. I await a response, but I have done everything in my power to ensure that we proceed as quickly as possible with the restructuring of the pig industry.

Mr James Leslie: The length of the Minister’s replies perhaps answers the question about why the cost of administering the Department is starting to exceed the sector’s revenue.
I am sure the Minister will agree that we cannot eat a book of regulations, no matter how attractive the wrapper. Yet we have book-loads of regulations that prescribe much of our own produce as not fit for sale unless it passes an expensive panoply of health and hygiene tests. On the very same supermarket shelves, consumers can buy imported foodstuffs that have not been subject to anything like the same degree of scrutiny. How does the Minister propose to level this most unfairly tilted playing field?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I am aware of the issue and of the frustrations experienced by our producers in having to adhere to the regulations, particularly those that relate to welfare. The issue was raised at a recent cross- departmental meeting of Ministers in London. It was agreed that it would be brought forward to the World Trade Organisation discussions with a view to making welfare regulations mandatory in all countries. I hope that that goes some way towards dealing with the issue.

Mr Gardiner Kane: Can the Minister assure the House that, in the event of evidence emerging about a price-fixing cartel, she will leave no stone unturned in any subsequent investigation?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I am aware of allegations of a beef cartel in Northern Ireland, and that the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) is considering those allegations. It is quite proper that any evidence of a breach of competition rules should be submitted to the OFT, and my Department will, of course, assist in whatever way possible. I assure the Member that should the OFT, discover any abuse of power I would press for immediate action to combat that.

Rural Development Plan (2000-06)

Mr Billy Armstrong: 2. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development if she will detail the progress made towards having the rural development plan for Northern Ireland for 2000-06 adopted by the European Commission; and if she will make a statement?
(AQO232/00)

Ms Brid Rodgers: I am very pleased that the plan has now been approved. Negotiations were protracted and difficult, particularly in relation to the changeover from the old headage-based hill livestock compensation allowance (HLCA) scheme to the new area-based less-favoured area (LFA) support scheme. We have achieved a very positive outcome with increased resources and a safety net in the first three years of the new LFA scheme. I was able to secure substantial additional funding for the LFA scheme from the Treasury worth £32 million over its first four years of operation. That means that the financing of support for hill farmers is now more secure than it has been for several years.
Furthermore, the safety-net arrangements will minimise the losses to those farmers who will see a reduction in their level of payment. As well as the new LFA scheme, the plan also provides for a significant increase in the uptake of agrienvironment schemes and allows for a continuation of the forestry measures, which opens up new opportunities for farmers under those programmes. Overall, the plan is worth £266 million to Northern Ireland agriculture from 2000 to 2006.

Mr Billy Armstrong: Although I note that approval for the Northern Ireland rural development plan has come later than that for England and Wales, I welcome the fact that it has now been approved by the EU Committee on Structures and Rural Development (STAR). Perhaps the Minister would indicate when she expects full Commission approval. She will be aware of Commissioner Fischler’s recent commitment to greater transparency in farm policy. Will she give a similar commitment to greater transparency, beginning with a commitment to keep the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee better informed of the process in such matters as the rural development plan?

Ms Brid Rodgers: The first part of the question related to when the Commission’s approval would come through. It takes three to four weeks to get formal approval, so we would expect to receive that approval four weeks from 24 October.
I am not sure about the second part of the question, which seems to imply that I have not been open with the Committee. I have consulted with the Committee insofar as it has been possible to do so.
When the plan was in preparation there was something of a hiatus in the proceedings of the Assembly, and that created a time lag. As I have explained to the Committee, I would have been in a better position to consult it had there been more time. I have given the Committee an assurance that I will attempt to do so in future on the basis, of course, that we do not have any more suspensions, hiatuses or breaks in our business in the meantime.

Mr P J Bradley: How will the LFA scheme contribute to achieving environmental objectives?

Ms Brid Rodgers: The scheme includes a general requirement that all farmers observe a code of good farming practice. That will make a major environmental contribution and will be reinforced by a requirement for a minimum stocking of 0·2 livestock units per hectare, which will guard against the problem of under-grazing. To counter over-grazing, all farms with stocking densities above 1·8 livestock units per hectare will be inspected to ensure that they are being farmed responsibly. In addition to the provisions in the LFA scheme, the separate agrienvironment measures in the plan will provide assistance to farmers specifically to encourage good environmental practice.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: Can the Minister give us some details on the recent strategic study into organic farming, carried out under the rural development plan?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I recently announced the strategic study into the organic sector in Northern Ireland because of the increasing market opportunities for producers of organic goods. I wish to encourage the development of a vibrant organic sector in Northern Ireland. It is important that it should be developed strategically, and I thought that a study would be the best way to take things forward. In making my decision, I was guided by the valuable work and recommendations of the organic farming liaison group, which draws its membership from the organic sector and the farming unions, as well as officials from the Department. In the organic sector, market demand is ahead of supply and we should be homing in on the opportunities that it presents.

Mr Roy Beggs: What is the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development doing to support and promote the establishment of a rural community network in south Antrim and parts of east Antrim? Those are the only parts of Northern Ireland that are not covered by a rural community network. I am concerned that there should be equality of access to the provisions of the rural development plan and the funding from Europe.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I cannot answer that specific question, but I know, in general terms, that there have been areas in Northern Ireland that have not taken full advantage of the rural development opportunities available since 1991. The Department is anxious to help the communities that have not previously taken advantage of the plan and ensure that they do so this time around.
I can provide the Member with a more specific written reply, but I assure him that I am very aware of the issue and anxious to do something about it.

Organic Aid and Countryside Management Schemes

Mr Kieran McCarthy: 3. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what uptake in the organic aid scheme and the countryside management scheme can be funded on the basis of the draft Budget allocation announced on 17 October.
(AQO259/00)

Ms Brid Rodgers: The organic farming scheme and the countryside management scheme are funded by the additional moneys delivered by modulation. They are not dependent on the draft Budget allocation announced on 17 October. The modulation money will allow us to work towards the target of having 1,000 producers farming organically and 4,000 entrants to the countryside management scheme by 2006, which is the period covered by our rural development plan.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: I welcome the Minister’s response. Will she be able to provide enough advisory officers to assist farmers in developing their plans?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I hope and expect that we will be able to provide the necessary expertise and assistance to farmers wishing to go organic.

Mr Eugene McMenamin: Can the Minister inform me when the uptake of agrienvironment schemes is expected? When will the organic farming and countryside management schemes open for application from farmers?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I will first deal with the agrienvironment schemes. The environmentally sensitive areas (ESA) scheme — in which 4,500 farmers participate, with 145,000 hectares under agreement — is considered to be close to its optimum uptake. It is anticipated in the rural development regulation plan that, by 2006, the organic farming scheme will grow from its present level of 20 farmers, with 1,000 hectares under agreement, to 1,000 farmers, with 30,000 hectares. The countryside management scheme, which will have its first entrants later this year, will have 4,000 participant farmers, with 150,000 hectares under agreement.
The second question related to the date for applications to the organic and countryside management schemes. As Mr Armstrong has already mentioned, the EU Commission approved the rural development plan on 24 October. The statutory rules necessary to bring those schemes into effect are currently the subject of consultation with the agriculture industry and will shortly come before the Committee for scrutiny. On completion of those necessary steps, the legislation will be brought forward as soon as possible, and I am anxious to be able to open the schemes.

Mr Robert McCartney: Is the Minister aware of Dublin Corporation’s scheme to convert human waste into organic pellets for spreading on land? Apparently, 22,000 tonnes are due for production this year. It helps both organic farming and the disposal of human waste. Are there any similar projects in mind to help organic farming in Northern Ireland?

Ms Brid Rodgers: Was it Dublin Corporation?

Mr Robert McCartney: Yes.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I was not sure.
I am not aware of that scheme, and I would be very interested to learn more about it. Because I am not aware of it, I do not know if my Department has any plans about pellets. However, I will certainly enquire about it and let the Member have a written answer.

Potato Crop (Brown Rot)

Mr Edwin Poots: 4. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development if she is aware of an outbreak of brown rot in the Scottish potato crop and, if so, what steps she has taken to ensure that it will not contaminate the potato crop in Northern Ireland.
(AQO226/00)

Ms Brid Rodgers: I am aware that the bacterium responsible for causing brown rot in potatoes has been found in water samples from parts of the Lunan Burn, and the Isla and Tay Rivers in Perthshire. However, extensive sampling of potato tubers irrigated from the contaminated rivers has confirmed that the infection has been confined to the watercourses. The Scottish Executive have assured me that the Scottish potato crop is completely free of brown rot.
Brown rot has never been found in Northern Ireland, but the possibility of its spreading here cannot be ruled out. My Department is taking all preventative measures permissible under EU rules so that brown rot does not spread to Northern Ireland, and it will continue to take all possible steps to prevent the introduction of quarantine pests and diseases, including brown rot.

Mr Edwin Poots: As the Minister indicated, Northern Ireland has never had brown rot. It is a disease that we do not want to infect our potato crops. I would like her to ensure that the Department ensures that no samples are allowed into Northern Ireland containing any disease, as washings of those potatoes could get into our water system, and thus contaminate the entire crop and do substantial damage to the Northern Ireland potato industry.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I think that I have already answered that question. The Plant Health Directive places the onus of plant health control on the country of origin, which in this case is Scotland. It allows the importing country to carry out sample checks. I have recently spoken to our scientists who are dealing with the situation and I have been assured that sample checks are being carried out regularly.
Furthermore, the brown rot Directive specifies detailed measures that all member states must implement in order to control and prevent the disease. It outlines a number of control measures to be taken to contain and eradicate infection should an outbreak occur. I have been assured by the Scottish Rural Affairs Department that the required measures are in hand.

Mr Jim Wells: There is enormous concern, particularly in my own constituency of South Down, about any remote possibility of this disease getting into Northern Ireland. Can the Minister confirm that it is within European regulations to test all imported potatoes coming through Larne or any other Northern Ireland port? Can she assure us that every batch of potatoes coming into the Province is being thoroughly tested for this disease?

Ms Brid Rodgers: As I have said, sample checks are being carried out. It might not be possible to check every single potato coming into the country, but sample checks are carried out regularly to ensure that brown rot does not come in. The Scottish Rural Affairs Department has assured me that it has been found in the water but not in the potatoes. It has taken all measures required of it under European regulations to ensure that contaminated water is not used for irrigation or for spraying of either potatoes or tomatoes.

Rev William McCrea: The Minister has said that there has never been brown rot in Northern Ireland. I have requested a meeting with her and her officials on this issue. There is genuine concern. We have never had this problem, and we certainly do not want the possibility of there being a problem added to BSE and the many other problems within the farming industry. Can the Minister assure me that not only is the onus on the country of origin but that she and her Department take the matter very seriously? Any brown rot coming into this country could wipe out another part of our vital farming industry at this perilous time.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I can assure the Member that I am treating the matter seriously. I took the trouble to discuss it with the scientists in the Department as recently as last week. I am aware of it as an issue. I am aware of the difficulties it would create. As far as anyone can humanly guarantee anything, we cannot rule out the possibility. For that reason, all the precautions I have outlined, both those assured by the Scottish Executive and those that we are doing ourselves, are being taken to ensure that brown rot does not enter the Northern Ireland crop.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Does the Minister not think it advisable for her officials to go to the country of origin to see if those European regulations are being strictly adhered to? The concern among farmers is that they may not be, and, if there is only limited testing here, that opens a door. No one can tell what will happen if that door is opened. It could be the destruction of the potato industry in Northern Ireland for ever.

Ms Brid Rodgers: It is not part of our responsibility, and it might be taken ill by the Scottish Executive if we were to send over our officials to see if they were doing their job properly. I will have to take the word of the Scottish Executive, and they have informed me that the issue is being dealt with. A watercourse is contaminated, but there is no potato rot. Every precaution has been taken to ensure that water from that watercourse is not used for irrigation or spraying until it is declared clear.

Ms Jane Morrice: Question 5 has been withdrawn.

Forestry Service

Mr Joe Byrne: 6. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to detail how the Forestry Service has been reorganised.
(AQO255/00)

Ms Brid Rodgers: Following the Forestry Service’s establishment as an agency, the chief executive invited consultants to look at its organisation, staffing and systems and to recommend options for improving efficiency and effectiveness. The outcome was major changes to the structure of the Forestry Service. Most significant has been the reorganisation of the work into three directorates — operations, policy and standards, and corporate services. The most radical changes were in the operations directorate, where a redrawing of district boundaries created three larger districts. Working practices were restructured, and responsibility for forestry grants was transferred to the policy and standards directorate. Previously the Forestry Service operated in five geographical districts — Ballymena, Castlewellan, Enniskillen, Limavady and Omagh, each serviced by a district office. The three new districts — east, west and north — created by the redrawing of district boundaries have offices at Castlewellan, Enniskillen and Limavady. The Limavady office will shortly move to Garvagh.

Culture, Arts and Leisure

Community Arts Projects

Mr John Dallat: 1. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure how he intends to promote the wider development of community arts projects throughout Northern Ireland.
(AQO251/00)

Mr Michael McGimpsey: Members will be aware of the future search process undertaken by my Department. An independent review of community arts has been identified as a pressing need, and the terms of reference have now been drawn up. For the first time, the review will provide a clear and comprehensive description of the community arts sector, by activity and location, and will outline how it can be developed throughout Northern Ireland.

Mr John Dallat: I welcome the Minister’s statement. Can he assure us that community arts will now be afforded equality with other art forms?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: If by "equality" Mr Dallat means equal amounts of resources or cash, for example, I cannot give that sort of guarantee. The Arts Council of Northern Ireland is responsible for funding. It is responsible for its own budget and administers the arts lottery money. I can assure the Member that there will be equity of treatment for community arts, because there is a growing awareness of their importance and the role they play at several levels.

Mrs Eileen Bell: Can the Minister assure me that there will be a better relationship between community arts and the Arts Council? I know that there have been difficulties in the past.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I am aware that there has been tension, shall we say, between the Arts Council and the Community Arts Forum (CAF). We are addressing the issue by looking at a review of community arts — the sector, its size, how it is coping, how it is growing etcetera. Such a review will inform us of how best to treat the sector as part of the overall arts infrastructure. Although there may be debates and arguments between the Arts Council and community arts groups, a review will take that on board and resolve the issue.

Mr Jim Shannon: How will the Minister encourage applications for community arts projects from both sides of the community? Secondly, how will he ensure that equal funding is given to applications from both sides of the community?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: The issue of equal funding relates to Mr Dallat’s question. We can be assured of equity of treatment, and the Arts Council, in common with all bodies and non-departmental bodies, has its own equality scheme as well as requirements under, for example, New TSN. Those are requirements that the Arts Council must meet. Each application will be treated on its merits, what it will deliver and what its outputs will be.
A review of community arts will perform an important task in informing the Arts Council where those criticisms lie. Criticisms may or may not have a basis. That is something that we will wish to be informed on, as it is a key area.

Mr Sean Neeson: Does the Minister agree that in dealing with community arts we are not talking about two communities? We are talking about a multicultural society in Northern Ireland, bearing in mind that there are sizeable ethnic minorities and other groups in the Province.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I agree with those sentiments. The Everitt review recommended that the Arts Council should consider delegating responsibility for community arts to district councils, and that is reflected in the Arts Council’s strategy of opening up the arts. There is equity of treatment and there is one community. Matters are dealt with on their merits, and that is the proper way to go forward with respect to the equality scheme that the Arts Council has adopted.

Leisure Facilities

Mr Sean Neeson: 2. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure if he will detail the steps he is taking in conjunction with the Minister of Health to promote and encourage the use of leisure facilities in Northern Ireland.
(AQO247/00)

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I recognise the role of sport and leisure as a major contributor to health and well-being. My Department is co-operating with the Department of Health in promoting the health agenda through its representation on the interdepartmental ministerial group on public health and the Northern Ireland physical activity strategy. This level of co-operation is endorsed by the Programme for Government, which recognises that improvements in health are vital to the creation of a modern and successful Northern Ireland. I confirm that my Department, in all its areas of responsibility, will continue to contribute to the efforts to promote a healthier society.

Mr Sean Neeson: I thank the Minister for his answer and welcome co-operation between the two Departments. Does he accept that, although health education is a major issue, there is a need for the provision of affordable leisure facilities in Northern Ireland?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: Affordability is a key factor, and we are aware that the provision of leisure facilities is a matter that lies primarily with district councils. District councils play a key role in the provision of leisure facilities. The Sports Council is responsible for the development of sport. Within the strategy, there are several bodies for promoting a healthy lifestyle, and the understanding that prevention is better than cure and that greater participation in sport and physical activity will have benefits not only in the sporting realm of this Department but also in the realm of health provision for dealing with the consequences of physical inactivity.

Mr Eugene McMenamin: Will the Minister assure me that he will consider encouraging people with disabilities to avail themselves of leisure facilities? Will he also consider introducing a package that will enable the unemployed to afford those facilities?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I can confirm that the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure is very concerned about the needs of the disabled. We recently announced funding made available under the Programme for Government through the Access for Disabled People to Arts Premises Today (ADAPT) Fund Northern Ireland, for a programme to provide 40 audits of a range of sporting and cultural venues to assess how they can be made more accessible. It will also allow smaller adaptation grant schemes to be introduced. We are promoting equality of opportunity and participation by as many people as possible. That includes people who have physical disabilities. I take the point about the unemployed and the fact that leisure activities perhaps present a greater financial burden for them.

Mr Derek Hussey: I welcome the recognition of the facilities that the Minister has rightly identified as being provided by local authorities and the part that they will play in the future health of the people. However, the Minister will be aware that local authorities are under considerable pressure in many areas to ensure that those facilities remain available to people. Are there any plans in the Minister’s Department, or in the Department of Health, to give some assistance to ensure that those facilities remain viable?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: The provision of leisure centres is primarily a matter for district councils. The Member points out that district councils suffer the financial burden and asks whether I have any plans. I am not aware of anything specifically at the moment, but I will enquire, and I can write to the Member should there be any specific details. The underlying principle is to promote equality of opportunity and participation. If district councils are having difficulties, that is something that the Department will have to address.

Mr Sammy Wilson: If the Minister intends to promote equality of opportunity for folks who are disabled or unemployed by making leisure centres more accessible to them, some form of subsidy will be needed. Is he saying that the Department will be making funds available to local authorities so that whatever revenue they lose through promoting leisure centres in that way will not have to be borne by ratepayers?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: That is not what I am saying. In answer to Mr Hussey’s question, I am saying that I do not have details to hand of any specific proposals for those who suffer physical disabilities. We are undertaking an audit of a range of sporting and cultural venues to assess what needs to be done to make those venues more accessible. It may be that provision can be made for a small adaptation grant scheme. Large sums of money are not necessarily required. Very small amounts of money can often make such venues accessible. I cannot be any more specific at this point, but I will write to Mr Hussey about it. If Mr Sammy Wilson wishes, I will copy the letter to him.

Foras na Gaeilge (All-Ireland Language Body)

Mr Barry McElduff: 3. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure if he will detail the steps he is taking to ensure that Foras na Gaeilge/the all-Ireland language body will allocate and deliver funding at the start of January 2001.
(AQO231/00)

Mr Michael McGimpsey: For the information of Mr McElduff and other Members, the title of the North/South Language Body in Irish is An Foras Teanga. Foras na Gaeilge is one of the agencies within the body. Both Foras na Gaeilge and Tha Boord o Ulster-Scotch are preparing corporate plans for carrying out their functions in 2001 and beyond.
Those will be submitted in due course for approval by the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC). Foras Na Gaeilge is currently conducting a review of its activities and structure, and consequently its corporate plan may not be submitted to the NSMC until early next year. An indicative work programme for 2001 will, however, be submitted to the NSMC for approval. That will ensure that there is no disruption to clients and potential activities in the interim period. Neither myself nor my ministerial colleague in the Republic of Ireland has any reason to think that there will be a delay in the allocation and delivery of funding at the start of January 2001. In 2001, indicative funding of £11·42 million will be made available to the language body.

Mr Barry McElduff: Ba mhaith liom iarraidh ar an Aire an bhfuil sé sásta leanúint ar aghaidh le hobair phráinneach an Fhorais Teanga uile-Éireann gan stad agus gan aon bhac óna pháirtí féin? I am glad to hear the assurances that money will have an impact on the ground as soon as possible. However, will the Minister act decisively to ensure that the crucial work of the all-Ireland language body proceeds without interference and does not fall hostage to the mood swings of the Ulster Unionist Council?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I can give Mr McElduff the assurance that I have already given. As I said earlier, neither I nor my ministerial colleague in the Republic of Ireland has any reason to believe that there will be a delay in the allocation and delivery of funding. We must remember that An Foras Teanga, or Tha Boord o Leid, is the body responsible for funding both the Foras na Gaeilge and Tha Boord o Ulster-Scotch. I do not anticipate any difficulties. It will be a smooth operation in terms of drawing down money and carrying out their responsibilities.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I am interested in the Minister’s reply. Is he saying, despite the assurances given by his leader that the withdrawal of Sinn Féin Ministers from the North/South Ministerial Council is designed to punish those who are not giving in arms, that, to use his own words, "the actions should cause no delay or disruption to the work of the North/South Ministerial Council"? Is he admitting, therefore, that his party is engaged in a con trick?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: That is a political question rather than one for my Department. MrSWilson clearly misunderstands what has been said and what this is about. The Member should understand that what we have given assurances on will not affect the operation of the North/South Ministerial Council or the implementation bodies. It will simply affect the participation of certain Ministers. That was what was said, and that is what will happen. It in no way prejudices or undermines the workings of the NSMC agreement, the Assembly or the Executive — any more than the actions of the DUP do.

Lisburn Library

Mr Edwin Poots: 4. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure if he will detail the progress made in providing a new library for Lisburn.
(AQO225/00)

Mr Michael McGimpsey: The responsibility for providing a new library in Lisburn rests with the South Eastern Education and Library Board. The board has acquired a site, with funding from my Department, and is currently exploring the possibility of providing a new library under the private finance initiative. If the new library is provided in that way, my Department will make additional funding available to help with the running costs.

Mr Edwin Poots: The Minister’s response does not enthuse me very much, as we have been getting similar responses for some 25 years and still the second-largest council area in Northern Ireland is being deprived of library services. If the private finance initiative does not work out, what will the Minister do to ensure adequate library provision in Lisburn?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I agree with Mr Poots when he refers to 25 years — Lisburn waited during the 25 barren years of direct rule, and the shortages and underfunding in much Government activity mean that the Library Service is no exception. Several towns have, like Lisburn, awaited provision for some time. During the spending review, SR2000, I secured an extra £0·5 million for capital library funding. Lisburn library itself will cost approximately £3·5million. Clearly the extra funding, added to the £1·3 million we are already getting, does not begin to address the need. Work is underway in Portadown, and plans for Strabane have also been announced, but we do not have enough resources. I continue to ask for the sympathy of the Executive Committee, but until the money is allocated to my Department I cannot provide capital funding for libraries.

Mr Seamus Close: Does the Minister not agree that it is a scandal of monumental proportions that Lisburn borough — the second-largest borough in Northern Ireland — should have been deprived of adequate library facilities for a quarter of a century? Rather than stating that he is exploring possibilities, the Minister should know that the people of Lisburn are demanding that, through devolved Government, the necessary finances be made available to provide a library, sooner rather than later. Although we recognise the other areas’ difficulties, the fact of Lisburn borough’s inadequate library facilities prevails.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I refer Mr Close to my original answer: there is a private finance initiative going forward to provide a new library for Lisburn. Lisburn Borough Council and the South Eastern Education and Library Board share Mr Close’s and Mr Poots’s recognition of this need, and they are considering providing the library through that mechanism. If that does not work, we will have to look at other ways, but we hope that Lisburn will get a new library through the private funding initiative.
Mr Close must understand that after 25years we will not be able to address all the funding shortfalls in year one or in session one. The project will take many years. I agree that Lisburn is a key borough, and although I may not agree with his words "a scandal of monumental proportions", I accept that there is a glaring need for provision.

Museums

Mrs Eileen Bell: 5. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure if he will detail his budget proposals for museums in Northern Ireland and state how they are reflective of the needs of the corporate plan published earlier this year by Museums and Galleries of Northern Ireland (MAGNI).
(AQO248/00)

Mr Michael McGimpsey: As a result of the spending review, museums have received an extra £300,000 for current expenditure and £400,000 for capital development for next year. Given the current financial climate, that is a welcome addition to the money available for museums. It will help to get the Museums and Galleries of Northern Ireland (MAGNI) off to a good start in implementing their corporate plan.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I hope that the Minister’s ambitions are realised. Have all the necessary funds been provided for the delivery of the corporate plan, and has a timescale been developed ?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: That is a matter for MAGNI, as it is the responsible managing body. It has a corporate plan, and it is fairly ambitious. It includes, for example, a national gallery for art in Northern Ireland and a museum of creative arts, which has a fairly large price tag of an estimated £57million. There is also a proposal for a maritime, aviation and industry museum, at an estimated £30million. We cannot provide those in year one or year two, but we may be able to do so over a number of years. Those will not be schemes that merit a once-and-for-all payment from the Executive Committee to the Department. We must look at more creative means of raising the finance, rather than following the previous route of expecting taxpayers to foot the bill.
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Chomhairle. Will the Minister say if he has plans to address the destruction of ancient archaeological sites as a result of modern development? That was mentioned in the corporate plan. Will his Department consider an audit of the archaeological sites?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: Archaeological sites are a matter for the Department of the Environment through its Heritage Service. It would be more appropriate to address the question of preservation to the Minister of the Environment. A review is being carried out at the moment of local museums and heritage sites, which is taking into account several heritage and archaeological sites. Preservation is specifically a matter for the Department of the Environment.

North/South Language Body

Mr Kieran McCarthy: 6. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure if he will confirm the location of the North/ South Language Body (An Foras Teanga/Tha Boord o Leid); and if he will make a statement.
(AQO244/00)

Mr Michael McGimpsey: The body has two agencies, with headquarters in Dublin and Belfast. The headquarters of Foras na Gaeilge are situated in 7MerrionSquare, Dublin2, and the headquarters of Tha Boord o Ulster- Scotch are located on the fifth floor of FranklinHouse, 10-12 Brunswick Street, Belfast.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: I am a bit disappointed because the fifth floor is probably not very accessible to many people. The fifth floor in which building in Belfast? Which street?

Mr Speaker: The Minister might help by repeating the answer.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: The fifth floor of Franklin House, which is located at 10-12 Brunswick Street, Belfast.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: That would not be accessible to many people. To make it accessible to more of our community, I thought it would have been outside Belfast. Agencies are centralised a lot in Belfast and an out-of-town site for that body might have been considered.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: Tha Boord o Ulster-Scotch will have permanent headquarters in Belfast in two to three years’ time. The choice of location is primarily a matter for Boord o Ulster-Scotch. It also has plans for an office in Donegal, and there is also the possibility of an office in Edinburgh. That is part of its corporate plans and it is for it to determine where its offices should be located.

Mr Nigel Dodds: I notice that the North/South Language Body is referred to by two different Irish names. Who is correct — MrMcCarthy or the Member who claims to be an expert in the Irish language?

Mr Speaker: It seems that the reference is in two languages, as I understand it from the question here.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: The language body is known in Irish as An Foras Teanga, and it is referred to in Ulster- Scots as Tha Boord o Leid. That is the governing body. There are two agencies, Tha Boord o Ulster-Scotch and Foras na Gaeilge, the Ulster-Scots and the Irish agencies.

Museums

Mr Eddie McGrady: 7. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure if he will detail when the review of the regional museums will be completed.
(AQO222/00)

Mr Michael McGimpsey: The local museum and heritage review has reached its final stages. A specialist heritage consultant employed by the review steering group has completed his work, and I expect to receive the steering group’s report shortly. The report will form the basis of consultation, first with the Assembly Committee, and thereafter with the wider museums and heritage sector. I expect a report to be made available to the Assembly early next session.

Mr Eddie McGrady: I am sure that the Minister will agree with me that the inquiry into the future of regional and other museums in Northern Ireland has gone on for many years in the absence of proper policy and finance. Can he assure the House that the review, when it has its ministerial publication, will give effective direction on how museums are going to be dealt with in Northern Ireland — particularly in the regional strategy?
Will the Minister ensure — I will be parochial — that Down County Museum, which fulfils all the registration requirements for a regional museum as laid down by the Museums and Galleries Commission, is, like others, granted that status and proper funding to enable it to protect the heritage? We should not let our heritage, as embodied in museums and galleries, be the poor relation in the cultural sector.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: The review currently underway began in November 1999. Initial proposals were received by the Department in June. The review steering group has considered those and agreed a report. It will shortly deliver its own report to the Department, which I expect in December. That will allow us to prepare a draft strategy at the beginning of 2001, which will go out for consultation. I expect the consultation process to be complete and to have a final strategy ready by next spring. That is the process, and I understand that the review seems to have taken a long time. However, I consider it appropriate that such an important and wide-ranging exercise be comprehensive. I expect the Department to be able to put in place a final strategy —

Mr Speaker: I ask the Minister to bring his remarks to a close because of the time.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: The Member has raised the matter of Down County Museum with me on other occasions. There are three classes of museum, and I confirm that Down County Museum is classified by the Department as a class-two or regional museum.

Mr Speaker: Order. We must leave matters there. That set of questions started at 3.32 pm, and it is now after 4.02pm.

Electricty Costs

Mr Joe Byrne: I beg to move
That this Assembly notes the high cost of electricity in Northern Ireland and calls on the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to examine and review the electricity supply market in this region.
Three weeks ago the Executive presented a draft Programme for Government to Members of the Assembly. It stated that its overriding purpose was to make a difference to the lives of the people of Northern Ireland. That is to be achieved by the Executive and the Assembly’s working together and listening to the interests of business and all the social partners to implement an imaginative legislative framework that could create opportunities for everyone in society. If the Executive and Assembly are serious about the task in hand, we must make a start and deal with policies inherited from direct rule, and whose effect is to hold us back from creating the sort of inclusive society and competitive economy that is at the heart of the draft Programme for Government.
The privatisation of Northern Ireland’s electricity network is one such hangover from direct rule. Over the last seven years it has put industrial, commercial and domestic users at an unfair disadvantage. I will draw the House’s attention to some statistics that graphically show the extent of Northern Ireland’s disadvantage when compared with the price of electricity in Britain, the Irish Republic and the rest of Europe.
For example, at the start of 1999 the typical domestic user in Northern Ireland paid 9·43p per unit, while in Germany the average domestic consumer paid 11·8% less, at 8·31p per unit, and in the Netherlands 32·5% less, at 6·36p per unit.
The comparisons with the rest of the UK and Ireland are equally telling. Northern Ireland’s domestic price per unit is 21% above that of Scotland, 27% above those of England and Wales, and 53% above that of the Irish Republic. This year domestic customers in Northern Ireland will pay around £305, whereas the average bill in Britain is £257.
The recent welcome liberalisation of the market in line with EU Directives will by 2003 allow around 420 of the largest commercial users to buy electricity from other companies such as the Electricity Supply Board (ESB). Despite that, the smaller small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are, and will remain, similarly disadvantaged. Taking an average industrial user with a maximum demand of 500 kilowatts at a 40% load factor, the price per unit is 14% above that of Scotland, 38% above those of England and Wales, and 75% above that of the Irish Republic.
With the introduction of the climate change levy in 2001, the cost of electricity to industrial users is scheduled to increase by another 5%. It is important, therefore, that we address the problem of high electricity prices in Northern Ireland now. The statistics reveal the extraordinary disparity in electricity prices in the North of Ireland, Britain, the Republic and the rest of Europe. The public has entrusted the Assembly with the good governance of the region. It is only right that we should ask why consumers in Northern Ireland pay more than consumers anywhere else in western Europe for this essential resource. The reasons are complex, and concern the structure of the industry and the way in which it was privatised; the refusal of Northern Ireland Electricity (NIE) to abide by the price controls of the regulator, the Office for the Regulator of Electricity and Gas (OFREG); the lack of interest from the British Government; and, until devolution and the draft Programme for Government, a total absence of any coherent policy direction.
To understand why the consumer is getting such an unfair deal, we must look back to 1992-93 when the industry was privatised. Whether we agree or disagree for ideological reasons with the policy of privatisation, it has been stated that the previous Conservative Government, in the words of Adam Ingram, botched up the privatisation of Northern Ireland’s electricity. It was rushed through. The two main power stations, Kilroot and Ballylumford, bought overpriced and uneconomic long-term contracts. They were paid £320 million — almost twice as much as they were worth — for such low-efficiency levels of production.
The two main components of those contracts were the guaranteed fuel payments, in which the customer paid for the cost of fuel burnt through NIE, and the availability payments, through which the generators received payment for the time they were available, whether or not they produced output. That is like paying a taxi company for having taxis available and paying for the taxi again when it does a run. The availability of the generators increased from 70% before privatisation to over 90% in some instances after privatisation — a higher fixed cost to the consumer. The availability of payments accounts for almost 50% of the total generation costs, a figure considered by OFREG and the Northern Ireland Consumer Committee for Electricity as excessively high. At around 80%, generation costs account for the largest proportion of the bill for industrial users, and the proportion is 60% for domestic users.
After some resistance from NIE, the Coolkeeragh and Ballylumford contracts have been reconstructed, which has reduced the cost to customers to a certain extent. Work on the new combined cycle gas turbine plant at Ballylumford will lead to increased efficiency levels and a further reduction in costs. However, it is disturbing that NIE insisted that the capital expenditure should be written off over a period of 10 years instead of the normal 20, which would have brought greater savings to customers. In my opinion, plant like that could be written off over 30 years.
Furthermore, the Kilroot contract is in need of renegotiation, but to date nothing has been done. The restructuring of the Kilroot contract, according to the Northern Ireland Consumer Committee, would bring the greatest savings to customers.
However, it would be mistaken for this House to focus all its attention on the generators. In a consultation paper published by OFREG in April, the charges relating to the transmission and distribution of electricity represented the largest single component of the cost of electricity after generation, and accounted for 30% of the final electricity bill. Transmission and distribution costs are the most profitable part of the business for NIE and its holding company, Viridian. This has important consequences for domestic users in particular, as the transmission and distribution component is, as OFREG has stated, inversely related to consumption. Therefore the transmission and distribution costs for domestic consumers represent 40% of the bill, whereas for large industrial consumers they are less than 15% of the bill.
At this juncture it is interesting to compare the costs of transmission and distribution with those in Britain. According to OFREG, at the time of privatisation, transmission and distribution costs were around the GB average for the average customer. Although overall transmission and distribution costs are expected to be higher in Northern Ireland than in Britain because of the lower level of electricity production, over the last 10 years they have shown an increasing divergence. We have not benefited as much from privatisation as consumers in Britain.
This year, transmission and distribution costs will be around 57% higher than those in Britain. OFREG predicts that that divergence will continue, despite the growth in demand in Northern Ireland that should have reduced costs. Transmission and distribution costs in Northern Ireland are set to rise, and by 2001 this divergence will be close to 60%.
One cannot get away from the fact that transmission and distribution costs are a major factor in the high price of electricity in Northern Ireland. In its April 2000 consultation paper, OFREG says that it is worth taking into consideration that since privatisation, had transmission and distribution costs reflected those in Britain, consumers could have saved an estimated £200 million, and around £40 million in the year 2000 alone.
If it is to fulfil the mandate given to it by the electorate and make a real effort to deliver social justice for all sections of our community, then the Assembly must address this serious issue. There is no justifiable reason why NIE’s transmission and distribution costs should be so much higher than those of comparable regional electricity companies in Britain. As OFREG says, NIE is unique in that it is the only electricity company not to have a price control set by the regulator. The regulator, unfortunately, has no teeth in Northern Ireland. The first price control was set by the Government in 1992-93, and ran until 1996-97. It allowed NIE to raise revenue by 3·5% above the rate of inflation, and its transmission and distribution prices by 1% annually above the rate of inflation. According to OFREG, that gave NIE £301 million to invest in improving the network. One third of that money was not used for network investment, but for the benefit of shareholders. Consumers experienced the consequences of this during the storms of Christmas 1998, when many had to go without electricity for days.
In 1996, NIE rejected the second price control set by the regulator. The case was referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission (MMC). In the end, a compromise was agreed. However, it did not adequately deal with the problem of high transmission and distribution costs. Unfortunately, customers have also paid for the capital underspend, as NIE was allowed to claw back an additional £25 million from customers in what the MMC referred to as "underpaid depreciation charges". The customer paid twice. That is staggering when one considers NIE’s "super profits" since privatisation and the dividends paid to shareholders, which have surely and steadily increased.
It has been estimated that Northern Ireland’s total electricity bill between 1992-93 and the current year was £3·8billion before tax. Fifteen per cent of this figure (£573million) represented NIE’s share of the profit, and 7 per cent (£267million) of this sum was the generators’ profit. NIE also made healthy returns for its shareholders. In 1993 the dividend was 10p per share, rising to 25.3p per share in 1999. NIE’s transmission and distribution asset base also increased considerably, from £402 million in 1993 to approximately £520 million in 1999. Of course, it must be acknowledged that since 1997, particularly after the 1998 Christmas storms, NIE has made amends by making significant improvements to the network, thus fulfilling their capital expenditure requirements. It has also invested in new customer communication systems.
Another welcome development came in April of this year when NIE agreed to a price control for the supply component of its business, which is responsible for billing, meter reading and customer advice. This accounts for only 5% of the average bill and will save customers about £16million between now and 2005. However, it remains to be seen whether NIE will accept the regulator’s price recommendations where they really count — the transmission and distribution costs where NIE makes about 80% of its profits — before the third price control is due to come into effect in 2002.
Devolution provides the Assembly with the opportunity to develop policies tailored to meet the needs of the people of Northern Ireland. If we are to have the confidence to implement and benefit from an all-Ireland, and indeed, a Europe-wide energy market as laid out in the draft Programme for Government, the Minister and his Department must seize the initiative, strike a fair balance between the interests of shareholders and consumers and end this electricity surcharge. The Minister and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment need to provide a clear policy framework to enable the electricity regulator to do his job without hindrance and to represent the interests of the consumer effectively. In this private monopoly situation, NIE are the price makers, and we the consumers are the price takers. Therefore it is imperative that the regulator be allowed to do his job.
It has been estimated that if Northern Ireland’s electricity prices had tracked those in Britain following privatisation, the consumer would be much better off overall. I tabled this motion because world energy and fuel prices are rising, and I have been led to believe that NIE are currently considering increasing consumers’ electricity bills by about 9%. Also, there will be a 5% increase in April due to the climate change levy. It is imperative that this issue be addressed now.

Mr Speaker: Given the number of Members who wish to speak, and that interruption must come and the Question be put no later than six o’clock, I have no option but to restrict the time for speeches. Therefore I ask Members to limit themselves to sixminutes each, with no longer than 10minutes for the moving and winding-up speeches. There is also an amendment to be considered, and 15minutes has been set aside for the Minister to respond at the end of the debate, before the winding-up speeches.

Mr Roy Beggs: I beg to move the following amendment: After "electricity supply market" insert "and distribution system".
The electricity industry in Northern Ireland was privatised in the early 1990s, and concerns have been raised about aspects of that privatisation. European Directives governing the electricity internal market have been issued since then as well.
Given this background, I agree with Mr Byrne that there is a need to review the electricity supply market in Northern Ireland.
I start by commending the work of the electricity regulator in Northern Ireland, who has done a lot of work in highlighting failings in the current system and in trying to act on behalf of the consumer. I commend also the Northern Ireland Consumer Committee for Electricity for its timely briefing, which, no doubt, we have all received, and which contains some useful content for this time of the year.
The purpose of my amendment is to clarify the motion and ensure that any review would cover the electricity distribution system in Northern Ireland. What I understand to be the electricity supply market is a relatively new arrangement, which has resulted in the largest electricity consumers, currently 32% of demand, being able to trade directly with independent generators. This has introduced a degree of competition between generators.
However, there is also a need to review the electricity distribution system in Northern Ireland. I welcome the fact that when moving the motion my Colleague used a much wider interpretation, and I commend him for doing so. I hope that the Minister will take on board that he is not speaking with a narrow focus, but on a much wider range of costs that impinge on the electricity supply industry in Northern Ireland.
According to OFREG, input into the 1998-99 transmission represents 39% of all costs to a typical domestic consumer. That is a very significant proportion. Also, the Northern Ireland Consumer Committee for Electricity has highlighted the fact that there is a growing divergence between the cost of electricity transmission and distribution of electricity by NIE and that incurred by companies in Great Britain.
For domestic consumers, the cost of transmission and distribution in Northern Ireland this year will be about 57% higher than for customers in England and Wales. The estimated cost by the end of the current control period will be about 2p per unit of electricity in Northern Ireland, compared to about 1·3p in Great Britain. This additional cost must be borne by the consumers.
The Northern Ireland Consumer Committee has highlighted that if, since privatisation, we had maintained parity with England and Wales, electricity consumers in Northern Ireland would have saved £200 million. We are talking about very substantial sums of money on the transmission side.
Although we are unlikely to match the transmission costs of England and Wales because Northern Ireland is of a more rural nature, there is still real cause for concern over the degree of divergence that has occurred. I will outline my areas of concern with the past distribution system and also on future possible conflicts of interests, and I hope that I will demonstrate that there is a clear need for a review of the distribution system.
In 1999, the director-general of OFREG in Northern Ireland advised that NIE had been allocated £301 million between 1993 and 1997 for capital expenditure but only spent £204 million on the distribution system. The net benefit was an additional £14 million profit to NIE shareholders. It is clear that this should not be allowed. If money has been allocated for upgrading the system, it should have been spent on that. It should not have ended up benefiting NIE shareholders.
Of course, there have been dramatic changes since a winter storm caused huge disruption to the transmission system in Northern Ireland. I hope that this underspend will be unlikely to occur in the future, but, nevertheless, it should never have been allowed to occur in the first place.
I will touch on NIE profits. According to Viridian’s annual report for 1999-00, NIE made a profit of £64·9 million in the transmission and distribution of electricity, with a turnover of £500 million. It is in a monopoly position, and the conditions in which it operates have enabled it to be one of the most profitable Northern Ireland companies. But what huge technological risks has it taken? How can it justify such high profits? What huge improvements has it brought to the system?
NIE is a monopoly distributor. It has a safe number of consumers and a captive market. According to business analysis, NIE investors have had a 28% return per annum. Its share prices have increased by 20% per annum, and a dividend of approximately 8% per annum is payable to them. It has been a very healthy business for NIE and its shareholders — at the expense of Northern Ireland’s consumers.
That is in the past, but NIE’s parent company, Viridian, has diversified into other interests. As I have said, NIE is a monopoly distributor in Northern Ireland and has access to details of the demand of all electricity users in Northern Ireland. That is potentially sensitive information. Viridian Power Resources, NIE’s sister company, has decided to generate electricity at Huntstown combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) station in the Irish Republic, so there is clear potential for a conflict of interests. Any review of the Northern Ireland distribution system must clearly address this. There must not be any conflict of interests with a monopoly provider of electricity.
Considering today’s announcement that there is going to be a 9% increase in electricity prices in Northern Ireland, the need for a review of the electricity supply market and of the distribution system becomes more urgent. I urge everybody to support my amendment.

Mr Jim Shannon: We all agree that electricity prices in Northern Ireland are too high, and the consumer falls for it every time. That is the real issue. Perhaps the Members who moved the motion and proposed the amendment can come together on the thrust of the issue and find accommodation.
This issue hits the pocket of every household in Northern Ireland, and it is a topic very much in the public domain. Consumers in Northern Ireland face stiff charges for electricity. They are forking out about £2 million more than the United Kingdom weekly average for their light and power. We have already heard the statistics. To put it into perspective, it is £3·10 extra for each household in Northern Ireland each week. Over a year, that adds up to a substantial amount.
Is it any wonder that consumers are considering alternative methods of power and heating? Is it any wonder that gas is making inroads in the Greater Belfast area? Phoenix Gas is an alternative method that is available in my borough. Many people are considering that option because the prices are much lower. People are constrained and focused upon the price and the bills that they have to pay.
The people who suffer most from the price increases are those who can least afford them — the elderly, single parents and families on low income. Very often they are also the people who use the most electricity. The result is that many are facing the stark choice that the elderly have to face every year — purchase food or heat the house. They have to choose whether to buy food for the children, put extra coal on the fire, or turn the electric up. How do you make those decisions? The decisions are dictated by your purse.
As winter approaches, so does the possibility of confronting a subject that many try to avoid — hypothermia. Many senior citizens face this problem every day of the winter.
Figures show that consumers in Northern Ireland are charged much more for electricity than are all our European neighbours. The figures are in front of us. I had made arrangements to get the figures, but the information that we received in the post today indicates a real difference. We are paying approximately two and a half times the sum our European neighbours pay. Northern Ireland consumers also pay more than the average prices in England, Wales and Scotland. Why do we pay a whopping 9·43p per kilowatt? That is the question we are all asking.
Perhaps one way of alleviating the price difference is to be more energy efficient, but I know that NIE has tried to do that. Those are things that we can do. At a fuel poverty show in the Long Gallery we saw people’s ideas on energy efficiency. NIE could spend more and make more money available, through loft insulation, hot water tank insulation or whatever. Those measures would help, but they would only partially address the issue. If the cost of electricity is still above the national average, the problem of price is still crucial. Full domestic competition is available on the mainland, but not in the Province — only 26% of the market is available and open. There is little chance of our having an alternative supply from another electricity company, because the source has to come through NIE. That concerns us.
There has been much discussion about a two-tier tariff system. That could also address some of our problems. If there were a lower charge for essential power and then a higher charge for non-essential power, as in England, that could create an incentive for customers to use their electricity more wisely. In England consumers have not been disadvantaged. NIE should carefully consider that plan. Two thirds of NorthernIreland customers could benefit from such a proposal, and the cost gap could fall from £25million to £9million. That is a significant differential.
We have been told that there may be some electricity coming in from Scotland. That may bring the price down. We are also aware of the possibility that the Republic of Ireland may supply electricity to NorthernIreland. A substantial and significant reduction could be made through those measures. At the same time there has to be a commitment from NIE to make the system work. At present, many customers — who are also our constituents — suspect that NIE could do more but is constrained by its shareholders. There is an onus on NIE to be more proactive in convincing customers that its primary concern is to supply a satisfactory service at a reasonable and equitable price.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The motion is very timely — it has just been announced in the media that there will be another price hike — but it does not go far enough. We need to be radical, innovative and imaginative on the whole issue of energy, not just electricity.
First, we need to look at an all-Ireland electricity supply. It is illogical for a small country like Ireland, with a population of less than half that of many European cities, to have two electricity systems. That has resulted in gross inefficiency and the disparity in costs that we have today. An all-Ireland energy strategy makes sound economic and strategic sense. We should also examine the expansion of natural gas networks. At present, the networks on the island of Ireland are clustered on the east coast, to the detriment of people in the west. That does not create a level economic playing field. It is grossly inefficient that only some of the population benefit from alternative energy resources.
We also need to open up the potential for renewable energy resources — wind and wave power would be the most suitable. It is not an exaggeration to say that Ireland could export electricity if we harnessed it in that way. Not only would it make sound economic sense to use renewable energy resources in the long term, but it would also have a beneficial environmental impact. For example, Governments now have to adhere to the Kyoto protocol. It will also remove our reliance on fossil fuels. At present, NIE’s ECO tariff is more expensive to use. NIE should make a firm commitment to eco-energy and the ECO tariff should be cheaper to use.
I was instructed by my party to propose to the Assembly Commission the use of wind turbines on the Stormont estate. The estate is the responsibility of the Department of Finance and Personnel, and the proposal is going through the Finance and Personnel Committee. I hope that the Department will look favourably on this option. However, there is no reason why, in the short term, the Assembly cannot transfer to the ECO tariff. By doing this, we would be demonstrating a political commitment to eco-energy, and we would be setting an example in this field.
I support this motion. However, it does not go far enough, though it is good that these issues are being aired. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Sean Neeson: I support the motion and the amendment, but there is a certain air of unreality about this debate. As we debate the issue, NIE stands poised to increase substantially the cost to the consumers. It has been suggested that the increase will be by between 9% and 10% and it will cite the very high cost of fuel, particularly oil, as its justification for this. However, Coolkeeragh power station is the only station that burns oil to generate electricity nowadays. While Kilroot has the capacity to burn oil, it burns coal, and Ballylumford uses natural gas.
This issue of electricity energy costs has been ongoing for many years. In the 1970s there was over-dependence on the use of oil for electricity generation, and some changes were made as a result of putting too many eggs in the one basket. The real problem to be addressed nowadays is the absolute mess that was made of the privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity. Not only were long-term contracts provided that were not in the interests of the consumer but, as I said at the time, the Northern Ireland electricity market was too small and there was no competition. That has brought about many of the problems that we face today.
NIE needs to scrap all its contracts with the generators. It should go back to the drawing board and develop contracts which will provide electricity prices in line with the total operational costs. As MrByrne pointed out, the overly high cost of transmission and distribution of electricity in Northern Ireland is one of the major factors that contributes to high consumer costs. I also agree with DrO’Hagan’s suggestion that we look not just at electricity, but at natural gas and other forms of energy.
I hope that people have come to accept that if we are to provide an energy distribution facility for the people in Northern Ireland, it must not just be provided on an all-island basis. While the introduction of the new Moyle interconnector has been opposed for environmental reasons, we must accept that we are now becoming part of a UK-based energy distribution.
The Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee has been considering a number of energy issues and will continue to do that. We have worked hard on the proposed natural gas pipeline to the north-west, where Coolkeeragh would be the anchor tenant, so to speak, and would generate electricity through a combined cycle gas turbine.
Last week, I joined the Minister and Mr Beggs for the cutting of the first sod for the new power station at Ballylumford. It is important to create a level playing field, but I am irked by the suggestions coming from the Republic’s Government that there should be a levy on the gas flowing along the North/South gas pipeline, which will obviously provide resources for a new power station north of Dublin. The Republic of Ireland’s Government are doing us no favours, and the Committee recently decided to approach them to ensure that the levy is not imposed. Such a levy could have a wide-ranging negative impact on the development of energy provision in Northern Ireland.
One of the Assembly’s main aims is to increase investment in Northern Ireland. We will have energy prices that are substantially higher than those in other parts of the UK and in the Republic of Ireland, but it is vitally important that we develop prices that can attract the necessary investment.
Finally, I echo the praise for the work of the regulator.

Ms Jane Morrice: I have listened with interest to Members’ contributions. It was a shock to learn that electricity prices could rise by a further 9% in the coming months — by January, perhaps. I call that electric shock treatment. Do NIE’s decision-makers have no understanding of the difficulties faced by their customers? I think particularly of those who cannot afford to heat their homes at present prices and are about to be hit with a further increase. I do not know whether the increase will take effect slap-bang in the middle of winter or at the end, but I know that it shows an incredible lack of sensitivity and understanding.
NIE claims that the rising price in Northern Ireland is a reflection of rising world energy prices. Why are NIE shareholders shielded from the rise, when NIE customers are forced to bear the brunt? I understand that profits of between £65 million and £70 million were made last year. In a normal market, if suppliers put prices up too high they price themselves out of the market and people go elsewhere. In this case that cannot happen because there is a monopoly on distribution, or at least on all but 32% of supply. Prices go up and up, and consumers can do nothing about it.
But we can do something about it. That is why we are debating this issue today. Let us take this opportunity to show the people of Northern Ireland that, as their representatives, working together, we can do something for them.
So, what can we do? First, we can call on the Minister to review the energy supply and distribution market, as proposed in the motion and the amendment. We can, as Mr Byrne said, find a system to ensure that price controls are properly exercised through the regulator. We can, as Mr Shannon said, differentiate between the prices of essentials and non-essentials. We can insist, demand, cajole, and put pressure on NIE to adopt greater social responsibility to its customers and use its profits to soften the blow of high energy prices, particularly for low income families. And we can, as Dr O’Hagan and Mr Neeson suggested, look at the issue of energy from a more strategic point of view, whether it be north, south, east or west, as well as renewable and alternative sources of energy — a vital component in this whole strategic plan.
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, we need to promote energy efficiency and, above all, to protect those in need. I do not know whether this House is aware that in 1988 there were more than 600 deaths — they are called "excess winter deaths" — directly linked to the cold. That is an astounding figure. These are people who cannot afford to turn on an extra electric bar because the prices are so high. We have got to do something to combat that: it is a matter of urgency.
We need to research the cause of these deaths on a cross-departmental basis covering health, age, housing, and economic issues. We must not just accept a domestic energy efficiency scheme. We must go further than that and adopt a wide-ranging scheme with no limitations on age or income, particularly of those over 60. We need an adequate national fuel poverty strategy, combined with an overview of energy prices and all the other issues. Let us hope that the Minister will do that when conducting his inquiry.

Mr John Dallat: Monopoly has been a way of life in Northern Ireland. It thrived during the long, dark days of direct rule when essential services stagnated and little changed. The storm of two years ago starkly illustrated just how critically ill the electricity industry had become. The same could be said of railways and other public utilities that suffered under the neglect of our absentee minders. We are now, I hope, in a position to address a range of issues critical to the emergence of a modern economy, finely tuned to compete with the rest of Europe. Electricity is central to that, so it is right that this motion should be debated today.
Historically, this part of Ireland was at the forefront of providing electricity. There is hardly a town or village that does not boast that it was among the first in Ireland with some type of innovative production of electricity. Today, of course, electricity is not a novelty or a luxury, but an essential service affecting every one of us, whether as individuals, businesspeople or employees. From the moment we are born until we finally depart, we are dependent on electricity in one way or another.
We have a right to be concerned about the cost of electricity and its impact on not only our personal lives but on the modern economy that we wish to create. Following the reunification of their country, the Germans treated provision of a modern electricity industry as their highest priority. Old, inefficient plants that were uneconomical and highly damaging to the environment were taken out of service and replaced with efficient new equipment. Wind farms strategically placed in the areas where they have least impact on the environment are playing a vital role in ensuring that the electricity consumed comes mostly from renewable energy. That helps to redress the environmental cost of producing electricity and acts as an incentive for further development in the field.
The question of cost is critical to our attempts to enable existing industries to remain competitive and to attract new inward investment. Such attempts are already severely handicapped by the strength of sterling and the disincentives created by corporation tax laws. The development of a European grid that would create economies of scale and increase competition between providers is an objective that must be pursued with full speed. The integration of electricity supplies on the island of Ireland is a key element in the eradication of inefficiencies and duplication. We must create a cost-effective industry that is capable of playing the role required of it to allow the Assembly to oversee the rebuilding of an economy severely damaged by the troubles of the last 30 years. Indeed, gross inefficiency has been present in public utilities for much longer.
The motion goes to the heart of the issue. We are entitled to ask the British Government to recognise their responsibility to provide us with the resources to rebuild our infrastructure, just as German industry is being rebuilt with the help of generous contributions from the federal Government. The production and supply of electricity at a reasonable cost is central to our objective.

Mr Edwin Poots: I welcome Mr Byrne’s motion and the amendment moved by Mr Beggs. I understand that they have come to an agreement about the motion. The Democratic Unionist Party will support whatever the Members have agreed. It is good to see that not all members of the SDLP suffer from the Dallat syndrome and can put forward practical and useful motions.

Mr John Dallat: You are very smart.

Mr Edwin Poots: Well, I shall deal with Germany later on, perhaps. We know that the Member had a good time there last week as he mentioned it three or four times in his speech.
I shall return to the matter in hand. In Northern Ireland the costs of energy use are higher than in any other part of the United Kingdom. Households here expend 15·7% of their budget on energy use, as opposed to 12·5% in the rest of the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland householders spend 7·7% of their budgets on electricity, whereas in the rest of the United Kingdom it is only 6·3%. So, for the ordinary man and woman in the street, the senior citizen or the family with young children, the cost of electricity is a higher component of their living costs than for those in the rest of the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland was sold short in the privatisation Bill that was brought forward by Sir Richard Needham. I had a wry smile last week when I heard Richard Needham telling us about the benefits of moving into the Euro zone. I thought of the fiasco that he organised then and the prices that we now have to pay as a result.
Such high prices affect families, pensioners and other ordinary consumers, but they also have a damaging effect on industry in Northern Ireland. Companies such as Michelin and Montupet agree that electricity costs have a detrimental effect on their output and sales.
It also has a downside. When the IDB tries to sell Northern Ireland abroad, companies with high electricity usage look at the cost of energy in Northern Ireland and compare it to that in Portugal, Spain, and other European countries. They say "Hold on a minute — the price of energy is very expensive in Northern Ireland", and then consider setting up in other countries.
The increase of around 9% announced by NIE is shocking, and it is important that this House unite to say that it is not acceptable. It is not acceptable practice, and it is not an acceptable policy. Having said that, privatisation has put NIE in a position to do such things. Recently I looked through a book listing the top 100 companies in Northern Ireland. The most profitable company was NIE — or Viridian, or whatever it wants to call itself. Premier Power was eighth, and NIGEN was tenth. Three companies involved in electricity are among the top ten most profitable companies in Northern Ireland. That says a lot when consumers are suffering as a result of the cost of electricity.
Some time ago the regulator began looking at electricity generating costs and how they could be addressed. I understand that an arrangement has been agreed for Ballylumford power station, which could reduce the cost of generating electricity there.
During the last two years there have been proposals for Kilroot that would significantly reduce costs, certainly in the short term. The Minister has to make the call on that matter. A decision has to be made — it is one that could significantly reduce costs and benefit our community — and it concerns the proposal to burn ore emulsion in Kilroot. The Minister has to make that call, and there will be an environmental impact. There is also the long-term aspect in that the deal in situ will run out in 2016, whereas a new deal for Kilroot would continue until 2025. The advantages to be gained now must be weighed against possible future disadvantages.
As regards the environmental impact, burning Orimulsion with a proper flue gas desulphurisation process would significantly reduce the emissions currently produced by Kilroot power station. While it would not be as beneficial as combined cycle gas turbine transmission, it would be more beneficial than the coal burning system currently in use at Kilroot. There would also be a significant reduction in costs up to 2016, compared to those we currently face. The Minister has some room for manoeuvre, and we look forward to an early outcome.
With respect to Viridian, the Minister must use all his pressure to bring it to heel and reduce the cost of electricity to consumers and to industry.

Mr Eugene McMenamin: I thank my Colleague Mr Byrne for moving this very important motion. For the life of me, I cannot comprehend how consumers on low income can afford to heat their homes. On average, the cost of electricity is 20% higher in Northern Ireland than in England. This is a major issue, which needs to be addressed seriously.
Electricity costs make possible investors think twice about where to locate industry. My constituency of West Tyrone and all areas west of the Bann can offer no alternative to oil — at least Greater Belfast can offer gas to industry. The cost of electricity in the Republic of Ireland is 50% lower than in the North, and that may be one reason why its economy is booming.
A considerable number of Housing Executive tenants heat their homes with the Economy 7 system. This type of heating can be costly if not used properly, and residents living alone can find it impossible to heat their homes properly. The average expenditure on lighting and heating is 6% to 8% of household income. Lone pensioners need to spend an average of 23% of their income on heating. However, they are more likely to underspend on fuel because they cannot afford the expense and want to avoid debt. For every degree centigrade drop below the winter average, there is a corresponding rise of up to 8,000 deaths in Great Britain.
Another major problem is the threat of disconnection. It can cause untold anxiety to young mothers with children and to senior citizens. I appreciate that there are several ways to pay the outstanding bill before disconnection, but sometimes the householder might be ill or disabled and have difficulty in paying.
My constituency of West Tyrone is a rural area, and electricity charges can be crippling to small farmers. Young married couples with a mortgage, who have never been mentioned in these equations, can also find these costs crippling — a major burden on their income and a factor in their outgoings.
Landlords who own flats and install their own meters for individual flats can charge whatever they want for a unit of electricity, and it is generally higher than the normal tariff charged by NIE.
One way of easing the burden of electricity charges might be to remove the standing charge that is applicable to all households in Northern Ireland. I ask for a special task force to be set up to examine the issue. I also suggest that charges be restructured to target social need in all areas of Northern Ireland.
I support the motion.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I add my voice to those who have congratulated the Member for West Tyrone for bringing us to a very happy occasion of both a substantive motion and a proposed amendment before the House, with which we can all agree. Like my Colleague from Strangford, I hope to be able to come to an agreement about the final motion. Then we can send out a clarion call that we are opposed to what NIE is doing to Northern Ireland and electricity prices in the Province. We need to be certain about the signal we send from the House. It is good that we have that agreement, and I hope we can finalise that by the end of the debate.
One comment with which I disagree was made by Ms O’Hagan. She said that she was opposed to having two systems of electricity power and distribution on such a small island. Her suggestion that we create an even bigger monopoly on the entire island of Ireland is something that I hope the House deplores. That would do even more harm to the consumer and undermine further the consumer’s rights. I hope that the House will knock on the head the bad economic case that she constructed. It would not make any economic sense at all.
Competition in this field is what is required. Failure to have real price competition is what has caused some of the consumer’s problems. That is also one of the reasons why MrByrne has brought forward this motion. We do not have the necessary price competition to give the consumers what they deserve.
Like all other Members who have spoken in this debate, I am deeply disappointed by how NIE has acted today. It appears to have wanted to get its blow in first, saying at lunchtime today, before this debate and in the knowledge that it would take place, that prices are to be hiked. That is disgraceful and is not only a snub to this place and to elected representatives from across Northern Ireland who have found agreement tonight, but also an insult to the consumer. NIE should reflect upon its actions and realise that it is in the dock tonight and is being held accountable and found wanting.
I believe that the sooner it wakes up to that reality and start to reflect the needs of the consumer, the better for this society.
We have heard questions from right across this House tonight. Why is it that electricity prices are considerably lower in other European member states? Electricity is generated there in the same way as it is generated in Northern Ireland. In Scotland, prices are about 14% lower than in Northern Ireland. In Spain they are over 50% lower than in Northern Ireland.
Why is it that in Northern Ireland such an inflated price is put on a necessity? As other Members have said, electricity is not a luxury — but a vital utility for the entire community. The reason cannot be the price of crude oil, because crude oil is the same price in the Republic of Ireland and Spain as it is here. It is due to other issues, and I suggest that one of them is the way in which the industry is structured here. Indeed, MrNeeson said that the structure of NIE privatisation is the error that lies at the bottom of this problem. I agree with him on that point. I believe that the structure of the industry is wrong, and it goes back to the mismanagement of privatisation by SirRichardNeedham.
The House should reflect very carefully on the economic advice that he is now purporting to give to people in Northern Ireland about the future of other parts of our economy. People should draw back from taking advice from that particular gentleman when we are living with the consequences of one of his most major decisions, which, as we can see, drastically affects the pockets of all our constituents.
NIE has been wrong in what it has done. It has been found to be wrong, and I hope that the Assembly will send out the clear signal that NIE must change its policy, that it must change its prices, and that it must favour the consumer, not the fat cat.

Mr Jim Wells: I support the motion, but I think it is somewhat ironic that we are discussing this issue when the impact of climate change upon the world is becoming more and more evident. This time last year we might have thought that there could be terrible storms, droughts and other climatic upheavals, but that they would not affect us. They might affect Venezuela, Bangladesh, the Maldives or the Seychelles, but the United Kingdom would be safe. However, even as I speak, a large proportion of Great Britain is under water, and if the forecast is to be believed, the same will happen to a significant proportion of Northern Ireland.
The penny is beginning to drop that the main reason for this is the generation of greenhouse gases by Western society. We will have to learn that we cannot continue to pour vast amounts of these gases into the atmosphere and not pay a terrible price for doing so. We have to be very careful, because if we demand a price cut in electricity — and many of us feel that the price is too high in the Province — we will simply increase demand and the emissions into the atmosphere. The price cut has to be structured in such a way that it encourages energy conservation here — something that we, as a society, are extremely poor at. One of the suggestions that has been put forward is that we should target price reductions at those who are most in need — pensioners, the unemployed and the disabled. I would subscribe to that.
It has been suggested that the pricing for the first 5,000 or 10,000 units, for example, should be deliberately reduced to enable those who are the low users — the people who are on low incomes — to enjoy basic heat, light and other facilities. However, once one gets above what could be ascertained to be a reasonable level, price increases would start to cut in to discourage people from wasting electricity.
I also believe that there should be greater emphasis on insulation and the conservation of energy in the Province. NIE is to be applauded — and perhaps this is one of the few bouquets that it will get this evening — for introducing the eco-energy tariff. This is a tariff by which consumers can buy electricity from a pool that is generated through environmentally friendly methods, such as wind power and wave power.

Ms Jane Morrice: The Member mentions the eco-energy tariff. However, we have to pay a higher price for electricity under that tariff. Does the Member think that it would be appropriate for renewable and alternative energy sources to be subsidised so that we would be paying a lower eco-energy tariff and a higher price for other energy?

Mr Jim Wells: The disadvantage in giving way to the Lady from North Down is that she steals the next point that one is about to make. That is exactly what has happened on this occasion.

Ms Jane Morrice: Great minds.

Mr Jim Wells: Great minds — what are they doing in the Women’s Coalition?
It is unfortunate that the wrong signal has been sent out regarding the eco tariff. It is, in fact, 1·2p per unit more expensive than standard fossil fuel electricity. NIE should send out the correct signal to society and say "We will actually price that tariff at a lower or similar cost to the standard tariff." That would encourage more consumers to use eco-friendly electricity.
No matter what we do, we must be extremely careful with the private consumer and industry, because the last thing we can afford to let happen in this society, or anywhere else in Europe, is a rapid expansion in the use of electricity generated through fossil fuels.
I do not want to sound like a latter-day soothsayer saying "Woe, woe and thrice woe", but if what we have seen over this past few weeks is anything to go by, this Province, and the entire world, is facing an ecological catastrophe. We must devise some system that reduces the cost of electricity to those most in need, and one that encourages all of us, including the people who run this building, to conserve electricity and energy, but that also ensures our continued economic growth. This is a difficult issue, and I do not envy the decisions that the Minister has to make. One option is the adoption of Orimulsion as one of the fuels to be used in the Province for electricity generation. NIGEN has examined this, and it will lead to a reduction in greenhouse gases, but let us not rush into a knee-jerk reaction by saying "Cut prices". We have to think of the consequences to society, because we are doing no one any favours by giving them more heat and warmth at a cheaper price if they are up to their necks in water as a result of flooding. Let us think long and hard before we go down this route.

Sir Reg Empey: We have had a very good debate. I thank the proposer for the motion and the proposer of the amendment for creating an opportunity for the Assembly to discuss seriously an issue that is of interest to almost every Member and our constituents.
When I took on this job, I was surprised at the extent to which my time was taken up by energy matters. I had not appreciated the amount of activity, given that the energy market is privatised. Nevertheless, a substantial amount of time is taken up because so many different things are currently happening in the energy field. Not only is there the question of the gas industry and how it develops, but there is also the question of the all-island market, and I will come back to that. There are questions relating to pricing and to Northern Ireland’s competitive position alongside other European regions. There is the overall European dimension and a whole range of issues that I will try to cover in the time available.
Mr Byrne asked "Why do Northern Ireland consumers pay more?" This matter was brought up by several Members. We pay more because in Northern Ireland it costs more to generate and distribute electricity. Most of the plant is 20 to 30years old and is inefficient. Until recently, the choice of fuels has been limited, although fortunately that is now changing.
The competitiveness of the local industry and our ability to attract further inward investment are not helped by higher prices. They also impose an unacceptable burden on families with a low income, and Members placed great emphasis on that. However, I challenge Mr Byrne’s comment that there is no coherent policy direction, because energy issues are referred to in the Programme for Government. I assure him that we are developing a policy to create a more competitive market.
We are in this position because a bad deal was made in 1989-90. We were given contracts that no one would enter into in the present circumstances. We are paying for the availability of plant and the generation of electricity. The cost of fuel is significant, and that is part of the price we pay. We have been wrestling, as has the regulator, with this unfortunate legacy. None of us wants it, none of us would agree to it today, but we are left to clean up the mess.
Mr Byrne said that nothing was being done about Kilroot, but I assure him that much has been done. Members have referred to several issues, including generation with Orimulsion, and I assure Mr Byrne that much time and energy has been spent on seeking the best options for Kilroot and the best policy framework in which the Department can help tackle the issue.
I accept the amendment put forward by Mr Beggs — a total review is a good thing. It is pointless to review parts of it, and I hope that we will be resolving the motion, as amended, at the end of the debate.
Many comments have been made about the monopoly situation and about the percentages of increases, and comparisons have been made with other regions. Some of the statistics were accurate, others slightly off, but the fundamental point has been grasped — we should not be in this position.
Regarding today’s price announcement, the regulator does not have the equivalent powers, but we are planning to correct that. Great Britain has a Utilities Act 2000, and next year we hope to bring in a Bill to cover the utilities area and the role of the regulator. Members are unhappy, and this legislation will reflect their concerns. I had hoped to introduce this legislation in the first half of next year, but it is complicated. However, we will try to have it later next year if progress goes to plan. It would give the regulator specific powers for the generation section that do not apply currently in Great Britain, so perhaps the Assembly can make a difference.
NIE price increases are governed by the terms of the privatisation contract. The regulator has a role, and will have to examine the proposals. I will be paying close attention and will consult with the regulator. He will have to satisfy himself that there is economic justification for the increases.
This does not address the social questions raised. People involved with constituency work in Northern Ireland will know that we are in dire straits, particularly our senior citizens. MrShannon and others have made this point. We are concerned and horrified that 600 excess deaths are deemed acceptable. Changes in the social security system have reflected what can be achieved. Unfortunately, the Social Security Agency (SSA) has been slow to realise that Northern Ireland is starting from a much higher base. Many houses are poorly insulated, but alleviation schemes are in place. Many elderly people are huddled round small fires. In this day and age it is a terrible indictment on all of us that people are freezing to death in this country. The Assembly must address this problem.
The climate change levy, to be introduced in April 2001, will increase the equivalent of between 5·5% and 8·4%, depending on demand and load factors. The levy can be offset by a reduction in employers’ national insurance contributions. Intensive energy users will also be able to take advantage of this, which will have some impact. There was a battle with the Treasury over the gas industry. We were partially successful in securing an exemption for the industry so that for at least fiveyears it will not be subject to the levy. The new gas industry will be able to get off the ground and will not be penalised before it has a mature distribution system in place. We also secured some additional assistance for the liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) sector, on which many people in rural areas are dependent. I welcome the fact that there is no time limit on that assistance.
Reference has been made to the potential for wind and wave power. Experiments are already under way, and local surveyors Kirk, McClure & Morton have been employed on behalf of the British and Irish Governments to examine the potential for wind and wave power on the island. The initial licensing has been granted for the first tranche of experiments, and we will continue to look at it closely.
Mr Neeson referred to the "mess" of privatisation and to the possibility of scrapping all business contracts, but it is not as easy as that. This is a difficult situation, but alternatives should be considered. I can assure everyone that we are looking at radical alternatives. The regulator has been struggling for the past few years to try to deal with the problem. When contracts are viable and lucrative, it is difficult to say to people "Show your social responsibility and let the people off the hook." Private business does not operate in this way. Consequently, our method of dealing with the problem needs to be examined, and we are trying to produce radical proposals to alleviate the difficulties. I cannot say whether the Treasury will permit them or whether they will be viable. The Treasury earned twice the expected revenue for privatisation, and we are left paying the price.
Mr Neeson mentioned the levy being imposed by the Irish Government on gas. This is a huge issue which could potentially pose a threat to our ability to open the gas market.
Dr O’Hagan and a number of others mentioned the all-island issue. Even if one takes the whole island, the energy market is tiny. It makes sense only if one links up with Great Britain and, from there, to mainland Europe. That is what we are doing with electricity. The interconnector from Scotland will, we hope, be in operation by this time next year, and we wish to ensure that the gas supply between North and South is connected. Most gas comes from Scotland in any case, but the Corrib field off the west coast of Ireland must also be included.
In this way, we shall have a gas and electricity market that is genuinely open to competition. By next April, we hope to increase the proportion of the energy market exposed to competition to 35% for larger commercial users, the maximum we are allowed at present. However, that figure could grow, and I do not doubt for a moment that the European Union will eventually open up most of the market.
The question of transmission and distribution charges was raised by several Members, including Mr Byrne and Mr Dallat. After generation, they represent the largest single component of electricity costs. The regulator has embarked on a transmission and distribution price control review, with new price controls coming into operation in April 2002. This matter is under close examination for I understand that our region requires a large number of distribution networks in isolated rural areas. Nevertheless, the amount of money is huge, and any review would have to take that into account.
Mr Poots represented the downside for the IDB. I could not agree more. It is not very nice trying to market this Province against a backdrop of high charges. That issue was raised by several Members.
Mr McMenamin, and others, raised the issue about areas west of the Bann where gas is not available. We must face the fact that there are, quite frankly, certain parts of the Province in which it will not be available. However, we must try to get it to those areas if we possibly can.
I am approaching the end of my allotted time. The Department has listened very closely to the substance of the debate, and officials are present and are taking notes. We shall take seriously what Members say, and I am committed — as the Programme for Government commits us — to reviewing the whole energy situation. It is almost a fundamental right, for one can do nothing in life or in business without it.
I wish to cover all issues, including distribution as well as generation. I assure the House that, together with the regulator, the electricity consumers’ committee and other interests, we shall actively pursue the review to realise our objective of achieving a competitive market whose prices give us a playing field level with that in neighbouring regions. That is one of my principal objectives for the Department.

Mr Roy Beggs: I am pleased that Mr Byrne told me that he would be content to accept my amendment. I need speak no further on it. However, I understand that we are limited by procedures as to how the amendment can be incorporated.

Mr Joe Byrne: I thank the Members who took part in the debate. I appreciate their comments about the timeliness of our discussing this issue. It is fair to say that there is a consensus that electricity costs in Northern Ireland are too high. People are asking why this is so.
The Minister has said the reason is privatisation, whose mishandling in 1992 has given Northern Ireland this high-cost relic. Several very good points were made about the high cost of electricity, particularly for low-income families and pensioners. Mr Shannon made a very strong point that NIE should consider some way of introducing differential tariffs relative to electricity use.
Other Members emphasised the handicap currently being experienced by Northern Ireland industry. I say to the Minister that if the climate change levy is increased in April, as scheduled, it will be imperative that this Assembly try to ensure that Northern Ireland industry is not disadvantaged as it is at present.
Mr Wells, Dr O’Hagan and others made strong environmental points. I fully agree that we need a radical examination of how we generate electricity. However, there is a real world and there is a make- believe world, and essentially this debate has been about the real world — how consumers are paying such a high charge for their electricity. There should be a radical appraisal of how we generate electricity in the future, and I concur with the general sentiments in favour of assessing alternative sources. I recognise that there has been an increase in one type of electricity generation in Northern Ireland, which is more eco-friendly, but the cost is prohibitive. In the short term we should not handicap domestic or commercial consumers as we have done to date. We have had seven years of high electricity prices; the issue has not been confronted. Therefore — and I say this to the Minister — we look forward to his bringing forward new proposals and working constructively with the regulator.
I am not blaming the current Administration and their Programme for Government. They are going to address the issue, and I welcome the statements made by the Minister in that regard. Consumers want this issue treated with urgency.
This afternoon’s proposal by NIE to increase electricity costs by a possible 9% from January steps up the pressure. There has been some annoyance about NIE’s making this announcement today. It does not concern me that much; it only adds to the debate and increases the urgency.
Mr Beggs moved a constructive amendment, and I fully accept its merits. The electricity market is not just about the generation and supply of electricity; it is also about its transmission and distribution. We have certainly heard a lot about the transmission and distribution costs that pertain here.
I am all in favour of economies of scale and of opening into a wider electricity grid, be it on an all-Ireland or on a European scale. The Minister has referred to the benefits that can accrue from the Scottish electricity interconnector; he is also trying to get a wider distribution of natural gas to other parts of Northern Ireland. Mr McMenamin, my Colleague from West Tyrone, and the rest of those of us who live in the west, have no alternative to electricity. This is a severe handicap. A potential industrial investor, thinking about setting up in my part of the world, was put off because there was no available supply of natural gas.
This debate has been constructive and worthwhile. It is timely, and I welcome what all Members have said. Ms Morrice suggested we benefit from wider economies of scale and tap into the wider network of electricity generation and supply. All these points are welcome at this time.
Lastly, many Members paid tribute to what the OFREG regulator has done in Northern Ireland. He and his dedicated staff are paid from the public purse, and until now their views have largely been ignored. As this is a devolved matter, it is important that the Assembly address the discretion and area of competence of the regulator. This will allow us a real impact on electricity prices in Northern Ireland. The Minister referred to the Utilities Act 2000, which will come into operation in Britain in 2002. This piece of legislation will have at its core the duty of the regulator to protect the interests of the consumer.
Several Members referred to the need for balance between the interests of the shareholders of NIE — and, indeed, the power stations, — and the interests of the consumer. The consumer has no option but to accept the price that is determined by NIE. Therefore this Assembly must now in the short time that is left put its weight behind the regulator in the interests of social justice. There is no great desire for the Minister to establish a review group to report on transmission, distribution costs and the remaining Kilroot contract to the Assembly before the final proposals for the third price control are submitted in July2001. These proposals will come into effect in 2002. I welcome what the Minister has said in this regard, and I hope that the 630,000 domestic consumers and 43,000 business consumers in Northern Ireland will reap some dividends from our deliberations. The only real issue is that time is of the essence, and it is in the public interest that these contracts be renegotiated.
Question,
Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly notes the high cost of electricity in Northern Ireland and calls on the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to examine and review the electricity supply market and distribution system in this region.
Adjourned at 5.36 pm.